Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Tourism

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on tourism, which is a much under-debated subject in the House.
Looking around my constituency, which surrounds Colchester and includes many villages, one sees that north Essex is typical of the riches that England has to offer visitors from abroad and from other parts of the United Kingdom. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), Colchester has a fabulous history from Roman times, when it was established as the capital of Roman England—until it was sacked by Queen Boadicea in the Iceni uprising.
Today, there remains most of a huge Roman wall that surrounded the old town. The town is dominated by the largest Norman keep in Europe, which was constructed over the vaults of the Roman temple that the Iceni destroyed. The so-called Dutch quarter of the town contains a wealth of timber-framed houses that were constructed from the middle ages onward.
The scars of the English civil war remain visible on many of the buildings in the area, such as the church tower at Little Tey, which was partly destroyed by the royalists' cannon. The bullet holes from their muskets mark the beams of the pub, which is now called the Siege inn.
Around Colchester, scores of tiny villages have survived the influx of new building, cars and commuters. They retain their charm and tranquillity, and each has its own gem of a church, many of which are of Norman or even Saxon origin. The Stour valley and estuary, which stretch along the Essex-Suffolk border and include some of the most stunning scenery in the east of England, contain Dedham Vale—dubbed Constable country by his famous travelling companion on the train.
That is the historical, cultural and natural heritage that provides the background and basis for hundreds of businesses and thousands of livelihoods in that little corner of eastern England. Scores of bed-and-breakfast businesses depend on the regular tourist traffic that comes off the Harwich ferry. The hotels, restaurants and teashops cater for the day trippers and weekend breakers. The East of England tourist board tells me that Colchester's shops have attracted 20,000 shoppers from Europe this year, despite the excessive strength of the pound.
That is the first message: tourism is big business. Tourism and leisure are the United Kingdom's fastest-growing industry, and already comprise the fifth largest industry in the United Kingdom—it is bigger than the construction industry. Estimates vary, but it is worth more than £53 billion a year—5 per cent. of United Kingdom gross domestic product—and provides about 1.7 million jobs, which represents about 7 per cent. of employment in the United Kingdom. The British Tourist Authority claims that that is more than five times the number of jobs in the motor industry. In recent years, tourism has accounted for about 20 per cent. of new jobs in the United Kingdom economy.
In 1997, 26.2 million visitors came to Britain. They spent more than £12.8 billion—up 3 per cent. on the previous year. In addition, £3 billion was spent on travel with British couriers. In England alone, tourism is worth £42 billion a year and employs about 1.5 million people. In Scotland and Wales, tourism is the most important industry, and provides the only growing source of employment in many areas. Tourism employs more than 8 per cent. of the work force in Scotland and 9 per cent. in Wales. Now that there is a real prospect of lasting peace in Northern Ireland, tourism is fast becoming a major growth industry there as well, so I make no apology for claiming an hour and a half of the House's time on the subject.
The fast growth of tourism does not, however, make it an easy industry. Much employment is in the small business sector, where people work extremely hard, and long hours, for relatively little reward to establish the viability of their businesses. The BTA estimated last year that there were 220,000 businesses involved in providing services to tourism in Great Britain.
Because of our climate, the pattern of demand is highly seasonal. One would hope, therefore, that the tourist industry would rate as one of the Government's top priorities, especially as the potential for job creation continues to be huge. I hope, therefore, that the Government have fully taken to heart the criticisms made by the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which complained about the stated aim of the Department. Its declared
aim … is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, and to strengthen the creative industries".
The Select Committee report complained about the narrowness of the aim, and added:
Nor, most importantly, does it make any direct reference to tourism and thus is reinforced the impression that tourism is viewed as the Cinderella of the Department. Yet it is far and away the largest industry for which the Department is responsible and, in economic terms, the most important.
On the page dealing with the aim and objectives in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport document, tourism is conspicuous by its absence. The Select Committee concluded:
We are, therefore, deeply concerned that, in policy statements by the Department and in public statements by Ministers, tourism is subordinated in favour of more glamorous and trivial matters.
I am an opera-goer. I do not think that opera is trivial, but we must also recognise the importance of tourism.
This is not a good start, after more than a year in office. Typically, once the spin doctors had got hold of the issue, there was a flurry of activity in the press, and the hapless Minister was sent on a somewhat ludicrous public


relations exercise. On 10 August, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting began a fact-finding tour of England. I am delighted that she felt the need to find out the facts, which should have already been at her fingertips. A press release states:
Tourism Minister … begins a major fact finding tour of English tourist destinations in Brighton today, ahead of the publication of the Tourism strategy later this year. Over the next two months she will visit every region in England to meet local tourism representatives and hear their views on the future of tourism and what the Government can do to support it.
That is after more than a year in office. The press release continues by quoting the Minister:
'With the holiday season upon us I look forward to seeing examples of best practice for myself … I want to hear … how we can back the industry locally and regionally to increase its competitiveness.
I will also be seeing how we can help".
It is a great privilege for the tourist industry to have a Minister offering help after more than a year in office. If she has listened to what real people involved with the tourism industry say, she will have heard what the problems are.

Miss Geraldine Smith: It is a bit rich of a Conservative Member to talk about what the Government have done after 18 months in power when they had 18 years in power. As a representative of a seaside resort, I have seen the tourism industry decline. Jobs have been lost in the industry and 70 per cent. of our local tourist accommodation is now being made into housing in multiple occupation. Five-bedroomed guest houses are selling for £5,000 in the resort of Morecambe. That is happening after 18 years of Conservative government. What did the Conservatives do for British tourism and for seaside resorts? They had their chance and they blew it.

Mr. Jenkin: The important point that the hon. Lady is making is that she agrees with the Select Committee that tourism should be the Department's first priority. It is sad that, at least for the first year in government, tourism did not figure on the Department' s radar screen.
What will the Minister have heard on her visits around the country? I hope that it went better than the social security ratios.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): As the hon. Gentleman declined to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), I shall answer it on his behalf. Is he aware that, under the previous Government, the English tourist board's grant fell from £25 million to less than £10 million? Does he regard that as an illustration of the previous Government's commitment to tourism?

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister is trying to deflect attention from the Select Committee's report. We should concentrate on her job in government and the fact that she has been reprimanded by the Select Committee for neglecting tourism after a year in office. That is what should occupy her, not the previous Government's record.
What will the Minister have heard in all those tourist destinations that she visited during the recess? On the economic climate, she will have heard time and again—

if she listened—how high interest rates and a high pound have hit the cash flow of many businesses in the past 18 months. Those factors are a direct result of the Government's mistakes on economic policy.
Independence for the Bank of England meant that interest rates rose higher and for longer than was necessary, and the British Incoming Tour Operators Association estimates that the number of overseas visitors in the current year ending in September was 4 per cent. lower than in the equivalent period for 1997, and said that the trend is still downwards. There have been 1 million fewer visitors to the United Kingdom, resulting lost income of at least £1 billion. David Quarmby, chairman of the British Tourist Authority, estimates that that will have cost the UK some 30,000 jobs.
The Government have piled new costs on business. Those affect the labour-intensive tourist sector badly, making it more difficult to employ people flexibly, and more expensive. The Government have introduced regulations arising from the EC directives on working time, on parental leave, and on part-time workers. Much in the directives simply reflects the good practice of good employers, but the regulations necessarily involve a lot of paperwork and monitoring, and create the potential for discord between employer and employee. Perhaps the worst aspect of those new laws is that they are likely to reduce job opportunities for women, because they tend to prefer part-time jobs, many of which will be replaced by full-time jobs, which are more likely to taken by men. I should have thought that that would concern the Minister.
Those regulations are intended to do no more than replicate the burdens on employers that already exist in other EU countries. As usual, the EU raises the level of regulation upward at a cost to the UK's industry and jobs.
Sir Rocco Forte told Caterer and Hotelkeeper on 27 March 1997:
I have operated in every single one of the continental European countries and seen very clearly the disadvantages they work under.
The Government are actively promoting the disadvantages under which the tourist industry will have to operate. The effects of the national minimum wage have yet to be felt, but that will be yet another burden.

Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I have given way to the hon. Lady already. I intend to be brief because I know that other hon. Members want an opportunity to speak in this debate.
The Government have disregarded tourism, our fifth biggest industry. They have damaged the industry with the downturn made in Downing street, and have burdened it with extra regulations and costs, which will damage growth and job creation. However, what have Ministers responsible for tourism done? I refer to a document issued following the comprehensive spending review, paragraph 1 of which states:
For the past year we have been conducting a review of the Department's activities as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.
The document goes on:
Our principal conclusion has been that all the areas for which DCMS is responsible are important".
That stunning analysis seems to dominate the Government's flaccid thinking on that whole question. On the pretext of that earth-shattering conclusion, Ministers


announced yet another round of consultation on all aspects of DCMS, including tourism. With incredible ineptitude, they put forward four options for the future of the English tourist board, not one of which includes the possibility of its continuing in existence.
I accept that the present relationship between the English tourist board and its regional counterparts is far from perfect. However, there are some real "sillies". For example, the English tourist board has produced a brochure entitled, "The Essential England". It deals with neither the west nor the east of England, because it was cheaper to produce a brochure that covers the east and the west. It places Buxton in the same region as Basildon and Hereford in the same region as Lowestoft. It is ludicrous to suggest that such an entity is marketable across Europe and the rest of the world.
The correct way to market the east of England, particularly to the short-haul overseas market, is to keep it as the east of England. I commend the tremendously good brochure, which I understand has been very popular, advertising the east of England. The East of England tourist board was unable to produce enough copies, possibly because of its over-centralising attitude towards the regions.

Mr. Richard Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely symptomatic of the Secretary of State's attitude towards tourism that the consultation process on the future of the ETB took place during the high summer season? Anyone who understands small businesses would know that that placed an impossible burden on hoteliers, which underlines what my hon. Friend has been saying—that, in practice, the Government care nothing for the tourist industry.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. Whatever the problems faced by the English tourist board, the answer is none of the four answers provided to the question that nobody has asked: do we need to get rid of the English tourist board?
The ETB and its regional offspring look jealously at their Scottish and Welsh counterparts, which have much more substantial funding. Scotland spends £18.3 million, or £4.81 per head of population; Wales spends £14.6 million, or £6.36 per head of population; and England spends £9.73 million, or only 25p per head of population. The problems that we face in England are simply a reflection of that imbalance. I do not begrudge what the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office choose to spend on tourism, nor am I calling for higher public spending in England; but it is ludicrous to suggest that we can solve these problems by abolishing England's shop window on the world.
The east of England, including north Essex, has its attractions, but every region of England must live under the brand name of England, or it is nowhere. I used to work for the Ford Motor Company in sales and marketing. It would be much harder to sell a Mondeo or a Focus if it did not have a Ford badge on it.
One can only conclude that the name of England has become something of an embarrassment to Ministers in this post-devolutionary world. Scotland can have a Parliament, Wales can have an Assembly, but England must be lectured to by the Scottish Secretary. We cannot have a Parliament—we cannot even have a tourist board.

The tourist industry does not need this myopic obsession with regionalism. It would not be sensible to submerge the regional tourist boards into the new regional development authorities, because their functions would be swamped by all the other things the authorities will want to do.
I am sure that the Minister will have a lot to say—Ministers always do—but I would be happy with quite a short speech from her. It would be nice to think that she will make an announcement to the House today on the conclusions drawn from her consultation on the future of the English tourist board, but I doubt that the Government want the House to be the first to know.
The tourist industry is highly fragmented. Thousands of small businesses are not geared to the strategic international promotion that English tourism requires. There may well be better ways to deliver such a strategy through greater involvement of the private sector. Will the Minister tell the House—I have given her notice of this question—that the English tourist board will stay? Despite its limited budget, it plays a vital role in promoting one of our major national industries, and it should stay.

Miss Geraldine Smith: I shall highlight the enormous difficulties faced by British seaside resorts, especially those affecting my constituency. It is outrageous that our seaside resorts are still reeling from the effects of the decline of the British seaside holiday in the late 1970s and early 1980s, despite the fact that tourism is forecast to be the world's largest industry by 2000. It is vital for the future prosperity of our nation that the British tourist industry play its full part in that expansion.
I blame the Conservatives for these problems, because they were in government for 18 years, and they did nothing to help British seaside resorts. We are living with the consequences. The town in which I grew up and have lived for most of my life was prosperous, and I have seen how the Conservatives allowed it to decline.
Many of our resorts have great natural beauty—magnificent beaches, splendid coastal terrain and breathtaking views—but they now play host to areas of dereliction and social deprivation that would match the worst found in any of our inner cities. Without a clear recognition that those conditions exist, and action is taken to remedy the situation, these resorts, which should be the cornerstone of British tourism, will continue to decline, and our tourist industry will fail to fulfil its potential.
I shall illustrate the problems that exist in many of our seaside resorts by referring to the position in my constituency. Over the past 20 years, 70 per cent. of the holiday accommodation in Morecambe and Heysham has ceased to be used for that purpose. Many of the huge number of redundant guesthouses and hotels are now used for multiple occupation, and are rented to families and individuals on social security benefits. Unscrupulous and usually absentee landlords have advertised extensively throughout Lancashire and elsewhere, exhorting people to come and live by the seaside. This huge pool of cheap and often sub-standard accommodation has acted as a magnet for the urban poor, the unemployed and the socially disadvantaged from those areas.
As a result, many parts of Morecambe and Heysham have a largely migrant population without roots in the area, and those people have few prospects in life.


Hon. Members can imagine the pressure that that places on our schools, especially those providing special needs education, and on social services. People come and go from the area. The daily flow in and out of those properties makes it impossible to establish any sense of community, and it makes nonsense of any attempt to provide reliable statistics on unemployment and social needs.
These areas not only are unemployment black spots, but have become hotbeds of crime and drug abuse. Three of the worst 10 and six of the worst 30 wards in Lancashire are in Morecambe and Lunesdale. Ill health, dereliction and social deprivation abound, but perhaps the most worrying aspect is the impact that they have on adjacent areas, causing them to decline and thus perpetuating the cycle.

Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady describes clearly the position in her constituency. What escapes me is the role that the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council and other councils in the area have played in letting the problems develop in the first place.

Miss Smith: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that Lancaster city council has done a good job of trying to regenerate Morecambe. Obviously, a great deal more has to be done, and we need help from central Government—I make no bones about that. I shall ask the Minister for the help we require, because we received no help during 18 years of Tory government. Local councils had to act in isolation and in very difficult circumstances.
Morecambe and Heysham remains a beautiful area, despite these problems. I am proud to have grown up and to live there, and I want to stay there for the rest of my life. It is ideally located as a gateway to the lakes. Its views and abundant wildlife rival any in the country, and it has enormous potential for the tourism trade to be expanded. I pay tribute to our beleaguered business community, which has worked tirelessly to regenerate the resort and, against all the odds, has been remarkably successful through private-public partnerships.
However, it is high time those in Morecambe and other seaside resorts received the full support of Government to help them in what they are trying to achieve. Like many others, my area has applied for assisted area status. Our case is fully justified, but it remains to be seen whether we will be successful.
British seaside resorts have suffered through the collapse of their domestic tourism industries every bit as much as other areas have suffered from the decline of their core industries. Coalfield communities and areas affected by the decline in manufacturing have received assistance, and we need the same assistance. The Government should provide a package of measures aimed at regenerating seaside resorts. That is not only in the interest of those who live and work in the resorts, but in the economic interest of the nation.
I hope that the Minister will offer some hope to seaside resorts. It is important for us to be given hope, because we have immense problems to overcome. We also have immense opportunities. Morecambe is doing well as a seaside resort, and is striving to overcome the difficulties. I cannot miss this opportunity to ask the Minister to visit my constituency in the new year. I will be interested to hear what help she can offer British seaside resorts. That support is vital, and has been lacking for many years.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the new Minister to the first real debate on tourism that we have had, at least since the last Session. Having spoken to members of tourism bodies over the summer, I am pleased to learn that the hon. Lady is already regarded as a well informed and enthusiastic Minister. I trust that she will raise the profile of tourism in Government, as it is one of our largest and most job-creating industries. Its success and growth are vital to a modern Britain.
I am also pleased that the Minister has acceded to my request that she visit the beautiful and go-ahead resort of Southport. She will have plenty to see—both our traditional heritage, and the new investment that is taking place. Thanks to European, lottery and other funding, Southport's new promenade and sea defences have now been completed. The new town centre gardens have been opened on famous Lord street, the pier is to be renovated, and preparations are being made for the construction of a major new indoor complex.
As I see it, British tourism is approaching a crossroads. Year on year there has been growth in the industry, but two major obstacles lie in the way. First, owing to the very success of the industry up to this point—it is now the fifth largest in Britain—it has grown so large that a measure of strategic planning has been essential to overcome the problem of fragmentation, and also to protect our environment from the excesses that uncontrolled and sustained growth in an industry brings.
We need a permanent strategic body that does not merely cover the same ground as the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. I ask the Minister to consider establishing a tourism commission for England, consisting of representatives of the industry and Government. The DCMS should be involved, but so should the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We must get away from the image of tourism as solely part of culture, rather than part of economic development.
The tourism commission should also include tourism business leaders, as well as representatives of small businesses and other interested bodies. It could draw up a modern and relevant remit for the essential English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority; it could propose new planning regulations relevant to the needs of resorts and other tourist sites, and take evidence from trade unions and the Low Pay Commission. Tourism is one of the lowest-paying industries, with the least job security. The commission could also advise Government on their new transport policies. Tourism in England has no ombudsman, and standards vary considerably; a commission could set those standards, and appoint a watchdog to monitor them. Being a strategic rather than an operational body, it would not require any significant funding.
I trust that the Minister recognises that those issues need to be tackled in the medium and the long term if the industry is to be stabilised, and I hope that the Department's forthcoming tourism forum document will contain proposals to that effect.
The second obstacle to progress is the cost of tourism in Britain, compared to other European countries. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport observed at a recent dinner of the Tourism Society, to attract overseas visitors we must market ourselves on quality.


To secure that quality, however, we shall need investment for the upgrading and maintaining of standards. I am glad that regional development agencies will have a major responsibility to tourism. Investment for tourism projects, which can be highly influenced by the exact needs of the location, should be directed at the projects themselves, rather than being decided centrally. It is, however, essential for funds available to tourism through regional development agencies to be spent on investment. Regional tourist boards have done a great job so far on their small budgets, especially in obtaining partnership moneys, and they should be maintained; but they must take on a new role, liaising with regional development agencies.
The lottery, through the national heritage memorial fund, has been a valuable source of money for the less commercial and non-commercial aspects of tourism, and for some major renovation projects. For example, although our Victorian piers and parks are not in themselves big money spinners, their presence attracts visitors, thus generating business for many resorts. I am keen for RDA funds for tourism to be used widely as match-funding for such investments. Many traditional resorts are members of the excellent British Resorts Association, whose advice should be sought on all aspects of regenerating our seaside towns.
With the ending of section 4 grants, small businesses in England and Wales lost access to funds to upgrade their facilities; yet the emphasis is now on quality. Small businesses in tourism have short seasons, and work to tight budgets. Because tourism is not an industry in which major profits are generally made—except in large London enterprises—funds from within the industry are seldom available to cover even the relatively small sums that are required. RDAs should have the option of helping to fund that sort of investment as well.
Another aspect of quality is who will monitor it. If, as is widely rumoured, the English tourist board's remit is to be reassessed, the Government must make alternative arrangements for the monitoring of standards. Another job for a tourism commission would be the drawing up of national guidelines, and the appointment of an independent monitor. That monitor should not work on a commercial basis, unlike the various bodies that currently grade hotels.
Notwithstanding new initiatives in respect of quality, prices and costs still matter. According to figures released by the British Tourist Authority, tourism receipts, for the first time, did not grow last year. We still have many visitors, despite the crisis in Asia, but the strong pound is reducing their spending power significantly, and they are not staying as long as they used to. The big issue relating to price, however, is that many more Britons are taking advantage of the relative cheapness of travelling abroad. If prices continue to be so high that it is cheaper for most people to take a summer holiday abroad—not even taking the climate into account—our domestic tourism may go into long-term decline, unless the Government take steps to redress the balance.
The introduction of the euro across the channel, but not in the United Kingdom, may damage us. International and business travellers will need to change their money into just one currency. Selling our holidays to Europeans will involve the expense of currency exchange, which will push up costs in comparison.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fearn: I will certainly give way to my friend from the Select Committee.

Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the vast majority of people who visit this country come from Europe? If so, he is much mistaken. People come from throughout the world. For instance, we have many visitors from the United States, south-east Asia and Japan, in whose decision-making the European currency issue is not paramount.

Mr. Fearn: The Americans have certainly been a major contributor to the industry so far, and American tourists will continue to come here; but as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has noticed, the Japanese are no longer visiting the country in such large numbers.
It is plain that, from the point of view of tourism—for which currency exchange is a major cost—the sooner the euro is introduced here, the better. I am pleased that the Government have moved to a position of "when" rather than "if'. At least our attitude is becoming clearer, and that is much better for industry than the limbo in which we have been living.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is the hon. Gentleman going to mention his party's proposals for the abolition of the BTA, and explain why he considers its abolition to be good for tourism?

Mr. Fearn: I have already mentioned the BTA twice; I have also mentioned the English tourist board. The proposal for abolition is not final, and there has been no firm statement in any of our documents.
Until recently, much of the work of the DCMS has been preoccupied with the "cool Britannia" image and similar diversions. Issues such as the strength of the pound, and one of the highest VAT rates levied on hotel accommodation providers anywhere in Europe, have been brushed under the carpet. The VAT crisis is particularly important, and the Government should tackle it.
Earlier this year, Deloitte and Touche published an extensive report on the likely effects on the industry, and revenue for the Treasury, of a cut in VAT on accommodation to the European average. The Government have had plenty of time to assess the report's findings. I ask the Minister—as I asked her predecessor—whether she has made any decisions on the basis of those findings, and whether she intends to press the case for a reduction of VAT to average European levels with the Treasury. Both this and the previous Government have pledged to equalise VAT rates across Europe as part of the establishment of the single market and the deal to end duty-free, which in itself will cost jobs. So far, however, the Treasury is stonewalling on the subject; nothing has happened. By equalising VAT, the Treasury could help tourism and raise revenue in the medium and long term.
Tourism needs to be a higher priority in investment and economic development, and there should be both a closer concentration on the quality of the product that we offer the consumer and a national long-term strategy for development. So far, such a strategy is lacking.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing it, thereby giving the House the opportunity to discuss tourism and hospitality. He and I share the view that those industries are important not only to Britain and our constituencies, but to the economy and the social well-being of all our citizens. Most commentators predict that they will soon be the largest in Britain—indeed, globally. I rise to offer the House a snapshot—a postcard from the seaside, I suppose—of local developments in the industries.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were to travel to my constituency, which would of course be a great honour, you would see on entering Scarborough a sign which says, "Welcome to Scarborough … Britain's First Resort". That is true, and it represents the industries' vision in Scarborough and Whitby. I am very pleased that the Minister's tour of seaside resorts and of representatives of the tourism industry included a visit to my constituency in August. It was very closely followed by a visit from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Opposition spokesman. So both parties are apparently in listening mode.
As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the tourism industry in my constituency is fragmented and segregated. It is spread throughout rural areas, small villages, market towns and large conurbations such as Scarborough and Whitby. Tourism is of special and growing importance in north Yorkshire, especially in the North Yorkshire moors national park, which constitutes about 60 per cent. of my constituency.
Perhaps I should send you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a postcard from the beautiful parts of the national park, such as the Esk valley. Instead of the comic seaside card that I had in mind when I got to my feet, perhaps I should be saying to all in the House, "Wish you were here." That is certainly the message that all people who work in tourism and hospitality in my constituency want me to convey. We do indeed wish that hon. Members would spend some of their hard-earned money in our resorts.
People visit Britain not only for the great delight of its scenic beauty but for our arts and culture—our museums, galleries and theatres. Indeed, one of the best regional theatres in the country is the Stephen Joseph theatre in Scarborough, which is run by Sir Alan Ayckbourn.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is funded by the lottery.

Mr. Quinn: The right hon. Lady is quite right to say that the theatre received a substantial capital contribution from the lottery, although revenue support was not thought through, and we failed to supply money. I am glad that, on the Minister's visit to Scarborough, I was able to accompany her to the theatre, where we discovered from Sir Alan Ayckbourn, no less, that tourism and hospitality are not only creative but vital industries. I take issue with the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Essex that the Department's vision does not cover the industries' creative side. The aspect is clearly stated in the Department's vision statement.
Sporting events are very important to our industries, attracting many international visitors. There has been the recent European football championship, and there are bids

to stage the world cup and the olympic games. Given Scarborough's experience of hosting the Bulgarian football team, I would urge a note of caution. We were promised that many thousands of football fans would accompany the team, filling vacant spaces on caravan sites and in bed-and-breakfasts and hotels. Unfortunately, the fans did not visit the delights of the Yorkshire coast.
I therefore urge that, in planning international sporting events and attractions at globally renowned venues, such as the Millennium dome, which is not too far from Scarborough, the Government contemplate ensuring that the virtuous aspects of trade and tourism spill over to the more peripheral areas, such as the north-east of England and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). We need to plan and think about where visitors will stay.
When my hon. Friend the Minister visited Scarborough in August, we were able to share a business breakfast with many key members of the local industry. On that occasion, she showed not only that she was in listening mode but that, a mere two weeks into her new job, she was willing to take on board the ideas, problems and concerns of people who work in the industry in my part of the world. She certainly greatly impressed many people who attended. I know that she has received many letters from my constituents who were grateful that she visited us.

Mr. Spring: Has the hon. Gentleman asked the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters he received following his visit to Scarborough, which caused great hilarity because he left on a train but descended at the first available stop to get into his ministerial Jaguar? That was part of his listening to integrated transport strategy.

Mr. Quinn: I am sorry to have to correct the Opposition spokesperson, but my right hon. Friend had been opening my constituency office—the first ever in Scarborough. My office is a mere five minutes walk from the railway station. The hon. Gentleman is right: my right hon. Friend took the train to Seamer. From there, he visited two proposed park-and-ride sites.[Laughter.] I am sorry, but that is on record. Those two sites are very close to Seamer railway station. Far from not being concerned with integrated transport policy, my right hon. Friend demonstrated his great concern to the people of Scarborough and Whitby. In fact, we are hopeful that, in due course, we shall be hearing about the policy.
As evidence of the high regard in which the Minister is held in the tourist industry and the impact that she has made, I shall quote the chairman of the Scarborough hotels association, who told the local media shortly after her visit:
It's great to see tourism recognised as an industry and on the political agenda. We welcome this initiative and are pleased to contribute to the Minister's listening brief so early into her new role in government".
Far from ignoring my constituents' concerns and comments, work is being done. I look forward to hearing the Minister make a statement, which will build on the Labour party policy devised under the auspices of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
Labour's document "Breaking New Ground—Labour's Strategy for Hospitality" was instrumental not only in my election to represent the seaside community of


Scarborough and Whitney but in helping to elect hon. Members across the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, too, was elected on Labour's promise to fill the vacuum in tourism policy that was created by 18 years of the previous Government's failure. We are fulfilling that promise by listening to the industry, dealing with its concerns and working in partnership.
I should like to mention to the House one local initiative in Scarborough with which I have been involved. We have established a Scarborough tourism forum that brings together everyone involved in tourism and hospitality. The forum is a place where we can debate the real issues of the day and look forward to the future. The Minister was able on her visit to hear about the forum's work, and I hope that she will take on board the lessons it offered when she considers any future tourism strategies and initiatives.
I hope also that, in the near future, we shall see at all points of entry to the United Kingdom signs stating not only that Scarborough is our first national resort but that Britain is the first global resort.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing this debate on such an important subject, and on using the time allocated so wisely. As I realise the enormous value and importance of tourism to the United Kingdom—especially to London, which itself draws in much tourism to the United Kingdom—I should say first, in a non-political speech, that our hereditary monarchy and hereditary peerage are extremely valuable and important to tourism in London.
As I said, tourism is important to London, and tourism in London is important to the United Kingdom. However, London is not everything in tourism. Also, with great respect to hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate, seaside resorts are not everything in tourism. We have to market the other parts of the United Kingdom abroad, and to market UK tourism inside the United Kingdom.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, I am concerned by plans to abolish the English tourist board. What will replace it? We have heard that responsibility for tourism may be given to regional development agencies. I am troubled by such a proposal for various reasons, the first of which is that my constituency will be on the very edge of the south-west RDA, which will also include Cornwall and Devon. The south-west RDA would tend to promote Cornwall and Devon—I have nothing against those areas—at the expense of other parts of the region.
My constituency and Gloucestershire generally, have far more in common with Herefordshire and Worcestershire than with Devon and Cornwall, and there is a strong likelihood that we in Tewkesbury would lose as a part of the south-west region. If responsibility for promoting tourism is given to RDAs, or to any similar regional authority, Tewkesbury would lose. I do not want that to happen.
Tourism is extremely important to the town of Tewkesbury, to the Cotswolds, to many other villages in the area and to the racecourse in my constituency. In Tewkesbury, excluding the racecourse, 12 per cent.

of jobs depend on tourism, compared with the national average of 7 per cent. Tourism is a vital factor in job creation and sustainability, in education and in the preservation of old buildings.
Tewkesbury has many old buildings. However, it also has many shops that have closed, primarily because of a shortage of tourists. Although Tewkesbury is a very beautiful and historic town, it suffers from proximity to Cheltenham, which has many chain stores. The town of Tewkesbury therefore specialises in and relies on speciality and novelty shops, on the abbey, on its many old buildings and on the river. Although those aspects of the town are extremely important—some of them are very beautiful—that is not enough. They have not only to look attractive but to draw in trade.
I should like to stress again the importance of tourism both to my constituency and to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): The United Kingdom tourism industry, one of our most important money earners, now faces extremely testing times. For a long time, it has offered good prospects to those providing a high level of customer service, although rewards have rarely been achieved without significant investment and disregard of the timetable of an "ordinary" working week.
Tourism's importance to both the national and local economies is difficult to overestimate. I shall not go back over the figures on tourism's importance to the United Kingdom, as those have been dealt with sufficiently already in this debate. Nevertheless, the business generated by tourism accounts for more than 1.5 million jobs. We should not forget that fact. Certainly in the south-west, where my constituency is located, tourism is vital.
Foreign exchange earnings from overseas visitors make a valuable contribution to the UK's balance of payments and contribute directly to economic activity in favoured tourist destinations across the country. In Dorset, tourism plays a crucial role in local and regional economic activity and boosts local people's employment prospects—especially of school leavers, who may be unwilling or unable to move on to further or higher education. At its best, tourism produces good examples of training on the job. Many very committed young people go on to have a very successful career in the industry.
Tourism is vital for my constituents, and a great many jobs depend on it. Any decline in trade hits our employment and economic prospects immediately and hard. Many hotels, restaurants and entertainment facilities enjoyed by local people could not survive without a thriving tourism market to support their turnover.
We live in a popular area for visitors, not least because of the area's outstanding natural beauty. Our beaches win awards. Many people have second homes in Dorset, and, as we know, Bournemouth is a popular destination for both Conservative party and Labour party conferences.
The economic uncertainty faced regularly by many smaller providers in the industry is compounded by the seasonal nature of much tourist activity. Almost a quarter of trips to or within Britain occur in July and August. In the off-peak months, that can cause cash flow problems, especially for smaller family-run businesses.
Then, of course, there is the weather. Apart from agriculture, the impact of poor weather is felt most keenly by tourism. If the summer is particularly bad one year, domestic demand may drop sharply. Consequent economic damage may be compounded if there is very little income at other times of year.
It is thought that tourism has growth potential in creating jobs and generating revenue. However, many issues—not least the Government's current policies—cloud the horizon and will undermine that potential. The Government's economic policies have had a heavy impact on the industry. Interest rates and exchange rates took their toll at the height of last summer's tourism season, and extra costs will continue to pile on pressure.
Red tape and regulation abound, and—with the introduction of the minimum wage, for example—will have a very real impact. Tourism relies on large numbers of students who undertake seasonal employment. It is also an industry in which young people have fewer qualifications but are willing to work hard for low initial reward, so that they may, with time, gain experience and better rewards.
I fear that the Government's proposals could damage the industry, particularly in the south-west.

Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. We have precious little time, and other hon. Members would like to speak.
If starting wages increase, employers will have to rethink their strategy and staffing levels to remain competitive in the global market.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, implementation of the European working time directive on work hours, annual leave and rest breaks also will have a major impact on the tourism industry. I am concerned that the Government have introduced regulations without adequate consultation with the tourism industry. The parental leave and the part-time workers directives are yet to come and they promise increased difficulties for an industry already under pressure.
I hope that the Minister will answer a couple of questions. Why does England get so much less grant in aid per head of population than Scotland and Wales? The south-west—as I have said, an area in which I have a particular interest—does especially badly. Perhaps the hon. Lady will respond on that point. The south-west is not a rich area. Indeed, it is an area of great poverty; and the further west one goes, the more poverty there is. Yet there is no reward, as there is in Scotland and Wales, for the industry with which we have to work in the area that I represent.
So far, our tourism industry has flourished, despite the rival attractions of overseas package holidays, the strength of the pound and the eternal problem of sometimes miserable weather, but I now fear for its future. Will tourism continue to prosper, and our local economy continue to reap the benefit, under a Labour Government? We face more costs, the import of more bureaucracy and

the probable demise of the English tourist board, which fights for the industry at the national level. It is symptomatic of the Government's attitude that they want to abolish the ETB without knowing how to replace it—despite the almost universal support in the industry for a strengthened and properly financed tourist board.
Tourism is low on the Government's list of priorities. It is an afterthought and, perhaps, sometimes an irritation. The industry is misunderstood and sorely undervalued. Why else would the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue a consultation paper requiring an industry response at its busiest time?
I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. It recommended that the Department's annual report should provide specific information on how its sponsorship results in enhanced economic performance in each of its sectors, based on the view of the Select Committee, which was overwhelmingly stuffed with Labour Members, that the Department's objective should be to foster the tourism industry. The Government have yet to persuade us and the House that they care. There are challenging days ahead and I urge the Government, once and for all, to take tourism seriously.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on initiating it. Many hon. Members have spoken about the attractions of their constituencies and the importance of the tourism industry. That is certainly the case in South-West Surrey. The only problem for the industry is the Government's inaction in tackling the A3 at Hindhead—but more of that on another occasion.
Tourism needs champions. It is a fascinating industry and I congratulate the Minister on taking on these responsibilities. If she can leave the Department with the official responsible for tourism being most highly regarded and envied, she will have made a difference. The legacy which she inherits is one where the snobbery of the Department gives prestige to the arts, sport and culture, but not to the industry that can create jobs and make a difference.
Tourism could be a catalyst for the Department. We have discussed the errors that it has already made—the omission from the title, the omission from the mission, the censure from the Select Committee and its inability for several months to arrange a debate on tourism in the House. It has made many mistakes, but the hon. Lady may be able to save the day and join the list of champions of tourism and hospitality as the real sectors of growth for the next century.
I commend some other champions to the Minister. It is a people industry; it is about education, training and the people involved thinking that they are valued. Many are taking that message seriously. David Harborne has been doing splendid work at the Hospitality Training Foundation. I commend Professor Airey at the department of tourism at my university of Surrey. They are people who think that investing in people from vocational qualifications through to degrees will make a difference. I commend the Confederation of British Industry and its tourism task force. Some of the leaders of the industry—Rank, Whitbread, Scottish and Newcastle, Madame Tussaud's and many others—say that we have to act in partnership and put more back into the industry.
Above all, I commend David Quarmby, head of the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. It was disgraceful to launch the consultation document in such a way that it appeared to obliterate the English tourist board. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has done a magnificent job as our spokesman. He was at the launch of the BTA report on the day these insulting matters were being handled, and the people concerned were in ignorance of them. It is vital that there is a strong role for English tourism as well as a powerful and effective British Tourist Authority.
I hope that the Minister will persuade her Cabinet colleague to fight for the industry in Cabinet. She can do much to raise the profile, but she has to win the battles as well. Regional development authorities and local authorities can help by being more generous on planning. Rural areas could do better if only they could get the planning consents that they needed. Many of our heritage buildings could be transformed if they could get the planning consent and support that they need. The danger is that the RDAs and the local authorities want to municipalise tourism, rather than promote it. It is essentially a private sector enterprise, not a municipal activity.
Much has been made of seaside resorts. I happen to have a great liking for the Isle of Wight and understand the significance of tourism there. I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and understand the importance of tourism there, too. I think that I have visited the constituencies of every hon. Member who has spoken today and appreciates the importance of the industry. I am tempted to remind the House that, when I was Secretary of State, it was the Year of the Pier. I think that people understand the importance of piers in our coastal resorts. I hope that the House will regard this as the "Year of the Peer" and understand the importance of peers in our constitution.

Mr. Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on initiating the debate and thank him for his generous comments about my constituency. I make but one addition to the civil war aspect and remind him that Colchester stood for Parliament.
In a forum where there is a great deal of political disunity, tourism should be a subject that unites us. If I have any regret today, it is about the politicking that has taken place—until this morning, I was not aware that tourism was a party political issue. That is certainly not my experience in the area that I represent.
Tourism is an inward industry, with visitors from overseas. Certainly Colchester has benefited recently from day tourists from the continent, so our greater European links need to be mentioned in that context. However, there is also tourism from within the United Kingdom, and I want to flag up one or two issues. One is the beach hut, and I declare an interest as I have a beach hut in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at Brightlingsea. The previous Government introduced value added tax on beach huts, of all things. That is not an incentive for people wishing to spend their holidays at home and be day visitors to many of our seaside resorts. The Minister is smiling, but this is an important issue in many of our smaller seaside resorts.
The second matter concerns the need for cheap accommodation, especially for young tourists from home and overseas. I make a special plea for capital grant funding for the Youth Hostels Association and similar organisations that provide accommodation for young people. I ask the Minister to investigate whether there is any way in which the Government could provide capital funding for new hostels and for refurbishment of existing ones.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been a good debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), without whose initiative in calling this debate we would still be waiting for the Government to hold one. It is remarkable that there has been no Government-inspired debate on tourism since the election more than 18 months ago.
There have been some excellent speeches, and one theme was clear throughout—tourism is important; tourism matters. Tourism matters in a constituency such as mine, where it brings in more than £100 million a year and is responsible for about 6,000 jobs. That is one reason why I take such an interest in the subject and am pleased to be part of our Front-Bench team. I also speak as a vice-president of the British Resorts Association and as patron of the Eastbourne Hotels Association.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken this morning with knowledge of the subject and conviction, and I thank them all. I fondly remember the visit to Eastbourne of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) during the Year of the Pier. I was not sure whether the mention of civil war made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) was historical, or referred to the one currently raging in his own parliamentary party.
I have already mentioned my constituency. In a letter to me, the excellent director of tourism in Eastbourne, Ron Cussons, expressed his own concerns and supported those of the British Resorts Association. The Government have drawn on the BRA's excellent work in projects such as those to measure the local impact of tourism, but the director of the BRA, Peter Hampson, expressed in a letter his concerns about the new structure and role of the English tourist board. He asked:
Will the forthcoming tourism strategy be truly strategic …? Will Government recognise that large and medium sized coastal resort towns now all have pockets … of social and economic deprivation …? Will Government take action to ensure that the short term dispersal of asylum seekers will not have long term social and economic implications for coastal resort towns?
Mr. Cussons endorsed those concerns and went on:
The season this year has not been good due to the World Cup, the inclement weather for Eastbourne and the high exchange rate. Fortunately, the conference trade has been exceptionally good. Therefore, the hotels have traded reasonably well.
We recently held a "listening to Britain" meeting for those involved in tourism in Eastbourne attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Those present, who represented a good cross-section of local tourism interests, voiced their concerns on several issues, including the widening tourism deficit, current rates of value added tax, the abolition of the ETB,


inadequate transport infrastructure, interest rates, the strong pound, the minimum wage and inadequate funding for tourism generally.
We shall return to those themes, but for now I simply ask the Minister whether she agrees with David Quarmby, the chairman of the British Tourist Authority, who said:
1997 was a very tough year for the British tourist industry, and all the signs show that 1998 is going to be just as bad. Without the strong pound, we would have expected 30,000 new jobs and £1 billion extra revenue next year. As it is, we did well to hold on to what we had.
What a damning indictment of the Government's economic policies. What does the Minister have to say to those 30,000 people who would have had jobs in tourism, but for her Government's policies? In opposition, the Labour party had many honeyed words for people involved in tourism throughout the country. After more than 18 months in office, how have the Labour Government risen to the challenges that other hon. Members and I have described? 
The Government's first act was to change the name of the Department, but in such a way as to emphasise the importance of other activities at the expense of tourism. I have never heard a remotely convincing explanation for the omission of tourism from the title of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. No doubt the Minister will have another try today.
In its own statement of aims and objectives, the Department made no mention of tourism—a glaring omission. More recently, on the occasion of the appointment of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) to the post of Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the Government took the opportunity to downgrade the role of Tourism Minister from Minister of State to Under-Secretary of State. Apart from the gross discourtesy to the Minister, for whom I have a high regard as a former Whip, what message does that send to an already beleaguered industry?
In the most recent spending review, tourism received only 2 per cent. of the Department's total allocation—£6 million, compared to £115 million and £125 million for museums and the arts—yet it generates more than 80 per cent. of the Department's revenue. No wonder Richard Tobias, chief executive of the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, described the sum as "meagre". On top of all that, the Government are seriously proposing to abolish the English tourist board, while leaving the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland tourist boards in place. That has brought forth a howl of protest from every corner of the country and every section of the industry. I presume the Minister has seen the conclusion of Travel Weekly—that there is 97 per cent. support in the industry for an enhanced and strengthened ETB. The feelings of the industry were in no way assuaged by the absurdly short consultation period.
We already know the funding figures: 25p per head for the population of England; £4.81 for Scotland; and £6.36 for Wales. The figures speak for themselves. There is no sign of the Government reintroducing section 4 grants to England, even though those are enjoyed by other parts of the UK. Fred Cubbage and his team at the South East England tourist board have stated:
There are more overseas visitors to the counties of South East England than to Scotland, and …. unemployment in parts of the South East are far higher than the average situation in Scotland.

Is it time to level the playing field and acknowledge the power of the England brand as one of the key magnets for overseas tourism? We think so.
Against that background, combined with the worrying slide in revenue figures, what is the Government's solution? It is to abolish the ETB.
That could not come at a worse time. There is a record deficit in tourism across the country and a record 10 million holidays were taken abroad last year. As if that were not bad enough, devolution is upon us: I have little doubt that Scotland and Wales will grasp the opportunity of devolution to increase their spending on promoting their countries—and why not? What implications are there for the long-term future of the BTA? The Government have become masters of the law of unintended consequences, but who is to speak up for tourism in England if the ETB is destroyed? How would the Government ensure that the strategic role now played by the ETB continued to be carried out?
"Ah, yes," I hear the Minister say, "but what about the long-awaited tourism strategy?" What indeed? I must congratulate the hon. Lady on her attempts to right some of her predecessor's sins of omission by visiting at least some tourist resorts. However, there was a strange omission from the list that I saw, as the hon. Lady did not propose to visit the premier seaside resort in the country. Let me put that right now, by extending an enthusiastic invitation to her to visit Eastbourne and assuring her of a warm and friendly welcome.
When are the Government going to start to listen to the tourism industry? When can we expect the Government's strategy? It has been a long time coming. We were told originally—last year—that it would be published "next summer"; then, this year, the promise was, "later this year"; and the most recent prognosis was that it would come in the next few months. On the subject of tourism, one can say without fear of contradiction that the Labour Government have hit the deck limping. Will the Minister tell the House today when precisely her strategy document will see the light of day and when the ETB will be put out of its misery?
Today's debate is a wake-up call for a Government who have shown precious little concern for tourism—our fifth largest industry—since their election. As we have heard, the industry brings more than £50 billion a year to the British Exchequer and employs nearly 2 million British people. It directly accounts for 5 per cent. of British gross domestic product and 8 per cent. of all consumer spending.
I can promise our tourism and hospitality industry that the Conservative party will battle for tourism in Britain. We have pushed hard to secure this opportunity to debate the crisis facing our seaside towns and tourist attractions, which is a result of the Government's lacklustre attitude toward the industry. Towns across the country, from Bournemouth and Blackpool to Skegness and Southend, need the support of the Government if they are to thrive. That support is patently not forthcoming.
Tourists and employers are paying a high price for Labour's damaging policies. There have been four basic economic blunders: raising taxes, punishing savers, massively overspending taxpayers' money, and piling suffocating costs on to business. Those have combined to drive up interest rates and artificially strengthen the pound, causing domestic and foreign holidaymakers to stay away from Britain's coastal resorts, national parks


and major tourist attractions. In addition, the stifling regulation of job-destroying legislation, such as that on the working time directive and the minimum wage, will serve only to deepen a growing crisis in British tourism that the Government have engineered. It shows just how low a priority the Prime Minister places on that valuable national industry that his Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not identify tourism in its name, its aims or its objectives. The all-party Select Committee even acknowledged that tourism is
far and away the largest industry for which the Department is responsible and, in economic terms, the most important … yet tourism is subordinated in favour of more glamorous and trivial matters.
The only attention that the Government have given to British seaside towns since the election has been to turn guesthouses into overspill DSS hostels for asylum seekers, and to delay and delay again over a fantasy tourism strategy. To add insult to injury, they have forged ahead with plans to abolish the ETB. Tourism is paying a very high price for the inadequate policies of this Labour Government.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing this morning's debate. We all welcome the opportunity to discuss what is undoubtedly one of Britain's most important industries.
I take the strongest possible exception to the allegations by Opposition Members that the Government do not recognise the importance of tourism, which contributes some £53 billion a year to the economy and employs 1.7 million people. It is also one of our fastest growing industries, and we certainly take it extremely seriously. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) said that he hoped that cheap party political points would not be made during the debate, and that is certainly not my intention.
The hon. Member for North Essex highlighted the industry's importance for employment. We have been liaising closely with the industry on the Government's proposals for the new deal to get young people off benefit and into work.
Many hon. Members have also mentioned our current consultation on the structure of support for the industry, and I shall return to that later in my speech. The aim of our consultation was to make sure that what funds were available were used wisely. Under the departmental spending review, the British Tourist Authority has been allocated an increase of £6 million, in contrast to reductions in funding to tourism in recent years.
Tourism is extremely important in my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed me to this post, I was very encouraged when the Manchester Evening News visited one of my local tourist information centres in Rawtenstall and said what a wonderful service it provided.
Other hon. Members raised important constituency matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) rightly referred to the plight of many seaside resorts around the country. Our domestic tourism working group charged a quality sub-group with looking at that problem. It examined a resort regeneration

action plan piloted by Redcar and Cleveland borough council, and that is likely to form part of the tourism strategy.
Before I leave the subject, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, who is truly a champion of tourism in her constituency, and to the excellent work in Morecambe which has transformed the town in recent years. Of course I can give her the assurance that I shall visit Morecambe as soon as I can. It will not be my first visit there, but I look forward to visiting it again.
I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) for his kind words. He mentioned the success of the industry and its potential for growth. I also congratulate him, as he has become the champion of the English piers. We were all delighted to learn that Southport pier was to be refurbished and renovated.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: May I remind the Minister that it was with lottery money?

Janet Anderson: It was indeed. We are grateful for and supportive of the money that the lottery is putting into similar projects around the country. During my fact-finding mission in August—I reassure the Opposition that it was truly a fact-finding mission—I visited the west pier in Brighton, which is also to be renovated using some lottery money, as well as considerable private sector investment. We see that very much as the way ahead.
The hon. Member for Southport said that he thought that a strategy for the industry was missing. Let me assure him that that is no longer the case, and I shall return to that later in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) referred to my visit to his constituency in the summer. I greatly enjoyed talking to the local tourism forum, which greatly assisted our consideration of the strategy and what was needed to help the industry. We were particularly impressed by the forum in Scarborough, which included local residents as well as hoteliers and people who ran the various amusements and attractions in the area. When considering sustainable tourism, it is important to include the impact on local communities—another factor that our strategy will take into account.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the millennium dome. We are proud of our decision to go ahead with the millennium dome, which will benefit not only London—although we expect some 3 million visitors to London for the millennium—but many other parts of the country. The excitement that has been generated by the project is incalculable. On Sunday, I very much look forward to switching on the floodlights at St. Anne's church in Turton, which have been funded specifically by millennium money.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) mentioned that London was a gateway. Of course it is. Many people who come to London also visit other parts of the country. He referred to hereditary peers as a particular attraction. That may be true, but whether they have a vote is probably irrelevant.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) is a member of the Select Committee. He and some of his hon. Friends made much of the criticism by the Select Committee that the Department does not take tourism seriously. He may not be aware that one of


the first things that I did on taking this job was to change the order of my title, so I am now the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. It may seem a small gesture, but it has been warmly welcomed by the industry.
The hon. Gentleman may not know that I visited his part of the country in the summer and was most impressed. I was delighted to return to Studland bay, which is one of the most beautiful beaches in the country. I spent a lot of my childhood there. I was most impressed by the management scheme on Purbeck, which is an important tourism attraction. A great deal has been done to introduce park-and-ride schemes and manage the number of visitors.

Mr. Fraser: I was aware of the hon. Lady's visit to Dorset, where there was much comment about why she did not go up in a hot air balloon in Bournemouth.

Janet Anderson: I did many other things, but I did not go up in a hot air balloon because I did not fancy the idea, but it did not diminish my ability to learn about the local tourism industry.

Mr. Jenkin: In the very short time she has left, will the Minister address the issue of the English tourist board?

Janet Anderson: Of course. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was most concerned about that issue and I shall address it before I finish my speech.
Let me briefly thank the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for her kind words. I agree with her whole-heartedly that the industry needs a champion. It is a fragmented industry which needs leadership. Our consultation with all sections of the industry has made that plain. We shall certainly take it on board in our strategy, which will be published in the new year because that is when most people think about their holidays.
I should like to address the point raised by the hon. Member for North Essex about the consultation process. We consulted widely with the industry because we wanted what public money was available to be spent as wisely as possible. Despite his criticism that the consultation process was carried out over the summer, we received more than 300 responses. The overwhelming majority called for a central co-ordinating body. That will be reflected in our decision, which will be announced soon. One of the main aims of the process was to get better help to the regions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will welcome that commitment.

Gulf Crisis

Mr. George Galloway: This is a profoundly important subject which affects many people's lives and touches our country's vital interests. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions, not all of which I expect him to answer today, but on which I hope he will write to me in due course.
The fact that there is a crisis in the Arabian gulf cannot be gainsaid. Just over a week ago, American and British sailors and airmen readied themselves, we are told, for political orders from the United States President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to launch a series of devastating raids involving cruise missiles and a massive bombardment of Iraq.
By the grace of God and the skilful diplomacy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, the slaughter that would have resulted was averted—much, it seems, to the disappointment of some. It was reported that, after the Secretary-General had accepted Tariq Aziz's letter, President Clinton felt that he could not justify the attacks, especially as the Pentagon's assessment was that they would have left 10,000 people dead—every one of them somebody's son or daughter, father or mother, husband or wife.
Do Her Majesty's Government share the Pentagon's estimate that 10,000 Iraqis would have been killed if the attack had gone ahead? If not, what is their estimate of what the death toll would have been? How many of the dead Iraqis does my right hon. Friend estimate would have been high officials of the Ba'ath party, important military or security officers, or innocent men, women and children with no responsibility whatever for the actions of their Government, whom they never elected and cannot remove?
We keep hearing that the Government have no quarrel with the Iraqi people, but how many dead does my right hon. Friend think would constitute a price worth paying? Does he recall the words of the American officer who said, as he incinerated yet another hamlet on the Mekong delta, that the village would have to be destroyed in order to save it?
My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the words of Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State. During an interview on US television, Lesley Stahl asked her:
perhaps half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions, is the price worth it?
Albright replied:
It's a very hard choice but the price … we think the price is worth it.
Do Her Majesty's Government share the view that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children—who, I assure my right hon. Friend, bleed just like his children and mine—is a price worth paying for their political objectives?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend will recollect very well the terrible sights in the hospitals that he and I have visited in and outside Baghdad. Does he also recall Denis Halliday writing in Middle East International on 13 November that 6,000 children were dying each and every week?

Mr. Galloway: I remember it vividly. This week's Tribune reported that Denis Halliday, a former UN Under-Secretary-General, also said:
We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.
Those are the words not of me or my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but of the former humanitarian co-ordinator for the UN in Baghdad.
I fear that someone was talking to my right hon. Friend the Minister when I asked whether Her Majesty's Government shared Mrs. Albright's view that the 500,000 children who, according to Lesley Stahl, had died as a result of sanctions, were a price worth paying. Perhaps, unlike Mrs. Albright, the Government contend that children are not dying as a result of sanctions—that is the position that some Ministers seem to have adopted in the bellicose days of late. Do the Government accept that any Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions? If so, how many, and how many would they consider a price worth paying?

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that we have common ground on this issue, but does he have any estimates of the number of Iraqis who died in the Kurdish area before and after the Gulf war as a result of nerve agents? How many Iraqis—and, indeed, Iranians—died in the Iran-Iraq war, which was stimulated by Saddam Hussein? Although many of them were soldiers, they were all, as he rightly pointed out, some mother's son. How many people in the marsh areas have died as a result of the actions of Saddam Hussein? Most people estimate that Saddam Hussein has killed more than 500,000 of his people, so does not the hon. Gentleman believe that Saddam Hussein bears some responsibility for the situation in Iraq?

Mr. Galloway: The figures are, in fact, rather worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Iran-Iraq war was a lunatic and disastrous conflict, but it was encouraged by the west, which armed both sides, and had a vested interest in its continuing for as long as possible. The numbers who died were perhaps a million on each side, so I am in no doubt about the disastrous consequences of those eight years of war—or, indeed, of the gas attacks on Halabja. However, the Conservative Government continued to do business as usual with the Iraqi regime after the Halabja tragedy was brought to their attention, not least by Labour Members when they were in opposition. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can read the Scott report for elucidation of that point.
It is scarcely credible that a Member of Parliament should seek to justify—if that is what was being done—our killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on the grounds that the Iraqi dictator was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Are we saying that we are morally equivalent to the Iraqi dictatorship?

Mr. Dalyell: Those who have seen the war memorials of first world war proportions in Iran will know that, in the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians suffered a terrible loss. However, the Iranian Government have made it absolutely clear that the last thing they want is a British-American military strike against Iraq. Given our better relations with Iran, could not Ministers at least talk to the Iranians about the matter?

Mr. Galloway: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I shall deal with that point later.
The House will now be familiar with Mr. Denis Halliday, whom, I assume, my right hon. Friend the Minister will not want to accuse of ignorance or bad faith. Halliday is a former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, and was an official of the UN for more than 20 years. He is a respected Irish official, who formerly served as the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Baghdad.
Last July, Dennis Halliday resigned his post, saying that he could no longer defend a policy which he described as "bankrupt." As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow mentioned, Halliday has said that between 5,000 and 6,000 Iraqi children every month of every year are dying as a result of sanctions. Is Halliday lying? Is Halliday wrong? If he is not lying, and if he is not wrong, is the Minister really saying that we are prepared to kill more than 200 Iraqi children each day of every month of every year in pursuit of our ethical foreign policy and our non-quarrel with the Iraqi people?
It ought not to be necessary to describe in detail the suffering of the Iraqis under sanctions, given the acres of detailed reportage by fine British journalists in some of the finest newspapers in the world—people such as the incomparable Robert Fisk, Alexander Coburn, Maggie O'Kane, Ron McKay and Felicity Arbuthnot. Again, I ask the Minister—are these people lying? Are they wrong?
Was Martti Ahtissari—the then UN Under-Secretary-General, and now the President of friendly Finland—lying when he said:
nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation which has now befallen Iraq"?
Was the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation lying when it said:
the continued sanctions have virtually paralysed the whole economy and generated persistent deprivation, chronic hunger, endemic malnutrition, massive unemployment and widespread human suffering … with the vast majority of Iraqis simply engaged in a struggle for survival"?
Was the UN World Food Programme lying when it reported:
Alarming food shortages are causing irreparable damage to an entire generation of Iraqi children …a fifth of Iraq's population is at severe nutritional risk … we are the point of no return in Iraq … the social fabric of the nation is disintegrating …people have exhausted their ability to cope"?
Was The Lancet lying in 1995 when it said that, since 1990,
567,000 children in Iraq have died as a result of sanctions"?

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Notwithstanding any differences that hon. Members may have about where the responsibility lies for the suffering of the Iraqi people—whether it is economic suffering, or suffering due to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein—does my hon. Friend agree that there have been times in history when he and other hon. Members have no doubt advocated sanctions against repressive, tyrannical regimes because that was the only way to influence those regimes? For example, did my hon. Friend advocate sanctions against South Africa during the time of apartheid?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: And Iraq.

Mr. Lewis: And Iraq. If so, what is the difference now?

Mr. Galloway: There is no dispute about the quotations that I have given the House, which unequivocally place the


responsibility for the massacre upon sanctions. The UN World Food Programme, the UN children's fund, The Lancet, the president of Finland—all say that those deaths are being caused by sanctions.
The tyranny of Saddam Hussein is another question, to which I shall return. I was on the demonstrations against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein when British Ministers were inside the embassy, signing trade deals. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) was with me in the 1970s when we formed the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Perhaps he was there, and I just did not know him then. However, nobody in this House has a longer record of opposition to the Ba'ath dictatorship in Iraq than me. That I can unequivocally state.

Mr. Lewis: I was at school in the 1970s. More seriously, will my hon. Friend answer my question? Has he personally ever advocated sanctions against the Iraqi regime, or any other tyrannical regime, because he believed—as the Government believe—that that was the only way to bring the political leadership of that country to its senses and to democracy? If so, has not he understood the inevitable consequences of those sanctions? Why is the situation now so different?

Mr. Galloway: I was coming to that point. I, too, was at school in the 1970s—I look older than I am.

Mr. Lewis: Not at the same school.

Mr. Galloway: Probably not, no. However, that did not stop me demonstrating or getting involved in political work. I reiterate my point, because I suspect that there is a sub-text. No one in the entire House has been active in political campaigns against the dictatorship in Iraq for longer than me—although some have been active for as long.
I was in favour of economic sanctions against South Africa.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: And Iraq.

Mr. Galloway: I was in favour of sanctions, rather than war, against Iraq in 1990. I have not changed my mind about that. If I have a choice—either Iraq is bombarded with cruise missiles tonight, or sanctions continue—of course I will choose sanctions. To do otherwise would be to call upon the visitation of missiles, bombs and weapons of horrific destruction against the people of Iraq. Why is that the choice being offered me by my hon. Friends' intercessions? I want to develop the argument for a policy that does not rely upon sanctions or upon war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South talked about sanctions bringing a regime to its senses. Is the Iraqi regime coming to its senses after eight years of appalling carnage? As the bodies are stretched end to end—the hundreds of thousands, the million or more dead Iraqis—is the Iraqi regime, in my hon. Friend's terms, coming to its senses?

Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway: No. I have given way to my hon. Friend twice, and I want to make some progress.
Is the Iraqi regime changing its policy as a result of the carnage? No. Even the best friends of this policy do not pretend that it is working. Is not a policy that is both immoral—as Dennis Halliday, the others whom I have quoted and I say—and ineffective overdue for review?
Was the distinguished foreign editor, Victoria Brittain, lying when she said in 1995 that there are
20,000 new cases of child malnutrition every month"?
Was the World Health Organisation lying when it said:
health conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate under the sanctions regime … the vast majority of Iraqis continue to survive on a semi starvation diet … the damaging effects of poor nutrition are being compounded by epidemics and by a precipitous decline in health care, the most visible impact of which is seen in the dramatic rise of mortality rates amongst infants and children"?
Are the WHO, the United Nations officials, the distinguished correspondents and the medical journals all lying when they spell out the catastrophic price that is being paid by ordinary Iraqis as the result of the policy that my right hon. Friend the Minister supports? I beg him not to try to wash his hands of all the suffering by blaming it on others. It is a spot that will not out, and all the perfumes of Arabia will not expunge it.[Interruption.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South may think that it is funny, but let him imagine the ocean of blood represented by all the dead people about whom all those eminent authorities have spoken.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Galloway: My hon. Friend is a good friend of Israel, and I will come to Israel's crimes in a moment. I have no doubt that he will want to intervene at that point, so I advise him to keep his powder dry for that.

Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of the perfumes of Arabia, in Iraq I saw by far the worst pollution that I have ever seen anywhere. Last night, I explained to the Deputy Prime Minister that, for all his good work in Buenos Aires, sanctions create pollution because of the lack of spare parts and the endless streams of leaking, badly maintained oil wagons going from Iraq to Amman. The good work in Buenos Aires is negated by what is going on in Iraq, and indeed Iran.

Mr. Galloway: When Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols in the 11th century, the Tigris ran red with blood. In the 15th century, it ran black after the sacking by Timur's hordes of the world's greatest library at Mustansariya. Let me assure the House that the Tigris and the Euphrates run brown today with raw sewage. People from the villages and hamlets in rural Iraq drink directly from those rivers, because of the breakdown of the water purification systems.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend talks of rivers of blood. Does he recall the article in The Sunday Telegraph by Mr. Con Coughlin, who debriefed in detail a Mr. Sami Salih, who was a friend of the person in charge of the military industrialisation commission and set out in graphic detail what is going on in Iraq today, referring to the mass executions and the huge loss of life inside and outside Baghdad, the elimination of whole villages, the destruction of houses, and the way in which Saddam Hussein is hoarding munitions and weapons of


mass destruction under swimming pools and in parks throughout the country, to be used against his own people? The west has a responsibility to deal with Saddam in some way. The problem is that people such as my hon. Friend persist in misreading the situation, and they do not come up with solutions. What is his solution?

Mr. Galloway: I am glad to say that I do not rely on Mr. Coughlin of The Sunday Telegraph for my information.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?

Mr. Galloway: Because it is a rubbish newspaper, and he is a rubbish journalist.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If you disagree, it is rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. Galloway: I could debate with my hon. Friend the value of Mr. Conrad Black to the English-speaking world, and the value of his newspapers to the great body of newspapers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go down that path, but will remember that this is a time-limited debate to which others want to contribute.

Mr. Galloway: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have been very generous in allowing hon. Members to intervene. Perhaps I should press on.
I am not sure what my hon. Friend's point was supposed to mean. If it means that Saddam is a tyrant, I am the last person who needs to be told about that, but how many executions has he carried out? Has he executed 567,000 children or killed more than 1 million people, which is the number that United Nations officials say have been killed by sanctions? I very much doubt it, but even if he had, is his river of blood an excuse for us to create our own? That is the $64,000 question.
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister know the tears that have been shed over the more than 1 million corpses, dead as a result of the policy over the past eight years? Do not think that Iraqi women do not cry over the deaths of their children, or that Iraqi children do not cry over the suffering of their parents and grandparents. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow are in a position to tell the House that a walk through the vale of tears that is Iraq is almost too much for the ordinary mortal to bear, so searing is the grief, so traumatised the population, and so enraged the people with whom we say that we have no quarrel.
What is all this for? Is it about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force in the middle east, contrary to international law and in defiance of Security Council resolutions? It cannot be, can it? Iraq withdrew from its illegal occupation of Kuwait seven and a half years ago, while another middle eastern country, Israel, has continued to occupy not one or two but three Arab countries for decades, in absolute defiance of a whole series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and in flagrant disregard of international law.
Iraq has rescinded its annexation of Kuwait, but has Israel rescinded its illegal annexation of the Golan heights or of east Jerusalem, the holiest of Christian places and one of the most sacred sites of Islam? The answer, of course, is that it has not.
Is it about weapons of mass destruction, then? Well, it cannot be that, either. After all, who were the first to use chemical weapons against Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq? We were, in the 1920s, and the allies used them again in 1991, when we used what are essentially atomic weapons.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They are not atomic weapons.

Mr. Galloway: The weapons were made of depleted uranium: 900,000 uranium bullets and 30,000 uranium shells were used in the south of Iraq, where radioactive dust has entered the water, the food chain, the bodies, and, ultimately, the children of Iraq, and is responsible for the huge cancer and leukaemia epidemic, with a tenfold increase in the number of cancer cases in the country.
Has my right hon. Friend the Minister read the trail-blazing journalism of Robert Fisk, the doyen of middle east correspondents, on the subject? Does he think that Fisk has got it wrong? What can he tell us about the World Health Organisation investigation? My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says that the uranium weapons are not essentially atomic weapons, but in The Toronto Star this week Michele Landsberg said:
DU, a toxic nuclear waste, is used to coat missiles and bullets, increasing their armour-piercing power. It bursts into flames on impact and is 'aerosolized' into radioactive dust. The stuff remains radioactive for 4,500 million years.
The article continued:
The U.S. Defence Department
estimates
that 630,000 pounds of depleted uranium were fired in the gulf in 1991".
We used other weapons as well, such as fuel air bombs which ignite huge volumes of petrol above their human targets, creating, in effect, mini nuclear explosions. We also used napalm and cluster bombs. All those weapons were described by the 49th session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations as
weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction".
Can my right hon. Friend the Minister do any better than his colleagues in answering the following question in a way that will make sense in the Arab world and on the streets of Muslim countries? Why is it that Israel, which illegally occupies the territories of its neighbours, and which has sought to obliterate Palestinian identity for half a century, is allowed to amass a mountain of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, while no Arab country is allowed to do so?

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway: Later.
When I asked that question in the House recently, a number of Tel Aviv's little echoes in the Chamber chorused that Israel was a democracy. Leaving aside the question of how a country that illegally occupies the territories of others can be so described, and leaving aside


the fact that 1.5 million Palestinians lived under brutal Israeli occupation for more than 30 years without ever being allowed to vote—

Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway: Later.
Leaving aside the fact that, for the crime of telling the rest of us about Israel's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Mordechai Vanunu is held in solitary confinement, serving a 20-year sentence, and had his jaw wired up in court like Hannibal Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs" in case he told the court anything else, surely hon. Members, including the friends of Israel who are present, can see that international gangsterism by a country that claims to be a democracy is worse—not better—than gangsterism practised by a regime that makes no such claims.
After all, the Iraqi people have no responsibility whatever for the actions of their Government, because they did not choose their Government and they cannot remove their Government, no matter how much we make them suffer. The Israeli people, however, are entirely responsible for the actions of their Government, because they elected their Government and they can remove their Government.

Mr. Lewis: Does my hon. Friend accept that petty, personal and vindictive attacks do nothing to enhance his argument, but in fact undermine it? Does he accept that Israel is not only a democracy, but engaged in an on-going peace process with the Palestinians? Recent weeks have seen progress in that peace process. My hon. Friend does nothing to help his case when he seeks to rewrite history about the relationship between Israel and its neighbouring countries. The reality is that Israel has been surrounded throughout its history by countries hell bent on its destruction, including the regime in Iraq.
The problem with my hon. Friend's whole argument is that, by turning the issue into a comparison between Israel and Iraq, he lets Saddam Hussein off the hook once again, and reinforces his strength in the Arab world. That is what is so irresponsible about my hon. Friend's argument about the British, American and Israeli Governments' responsibility. It is Saddam Hussein who is responsible for the situation that faces the Iraqi people and for the instability in the middle east.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) cannot make a speech in an intervention. May I add that moderation should be the hallmark of language in our debates? I have heard nothing out of order so far, but laying the stress on moderation would be helpful in the present atmosphere.

Mr. Galloway: I do not believe that it can be petty and vindictive to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South, with his well known views, to intervene in my speech four times. Indeed, it is probably generous. I am not sure that the people who live in the illegally occupied Golan Heights, illegally annexed by Israel, look on Tel Aviv as a democracy. I am not sure that the people of southern Lebanon, occupied by Israel since 1982,

look upon Israel as a democracy. Certainly, the 1.5 million Palestinians who have lived for more than 30 years in occupied West Bank and Gaza have never been allowed to vote. I do not imagine that they look upon Tel Aviv as a democracy. Even if I accept that Israel is a democracy, my point is that crimes committed by a democracy are worse than crimes committed by a dictatorship. That is indisputable.
Has anyone advanced any proposal to punish the people of Israel for the international law breaking of the Government whom they elected? No, unless one counts making them participate in the Eurovision song contest and the European cup winners cup. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister, as a long-time friend of Israel, does not like the double standards argument, but I assure him that it is an argument permanently on the lips of every Arab, from the most august in the palaces of the friendly Arab states to the man and woman in the street and it is the principal reason why his policy is utterly discredited in the Arab and Muslim world, and more widely.
What about the white knights of UNSCOM, led by Richard Butler? Can my right hon. Friend the Minister hazard a guess why a senior—and I mean very senior—still-serving official of the UN should describe Mr. Butler to me recently, on the basis of more than 20 years' close knowledge of the man, as a "congenital liar"? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread unhappiness in the secretariat of the UN and in the Security Council about the conduct and the style of work of Mr. Butler?
Did my right hon. Friend read the article by David Usborne in The Independent almost a year ago in which he wrote:
The criticism voiced privately in the corridors of UN headquarters is this: in his handling of the crisis that has put the United States on the brink of military action in the Gulf, Mr. Butler has failed utterly to lower the temperature. Indeed, by refusing to moderate his confrontational style, he has provoked almost everyone involved.
An opinion whispered a year ago in the corridors of New York is now openly discussed by everyone, except—it seems—the US Government and our own.
Can my right hon. Friend the Minister understand the widespread view that Mr. Butler is a provocateur who has his men swaggering around Iraq, trying not to resolve the remaining questions between the UN and Iraq, but to create pretexts for continuing the crisis and even to provoke a new and terrible military confrontation? The Arabs feel it, the majority of the permanent five on the security council feel it, and the Minister must know it. That feeling was exacerbated when Mr. Butler's deputy, the former US intelligence officer, Scott Ritter, announced to the world, after leaving his post, that he had indeed collaborated with Israeli intelligence during his time in Baghdad.
While I am on that subject, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said four weeks ago that he would write to me about the revelation—the source of which was in New York, not Baghdad—that four named agents of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had served under false names and false passports as UNSCOM agents of Mr. Butler in Baghdad. What has been the progress of my right hon. Friend's investigation of that matter, and when will he be in a position to write to me as he promised?

Mr. Dalyell: A fortnight ago, the former Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, and I sat in the office of UNSCOM talking to the acting director, the honest


Finn Jaakko Ylitalo, and Caroline Cross. When we asked about Scott Ritter, they said, "Please don't mention him, we are ashamed."

Mr. Galloway: That is widely felt.
The events of the past week have vindicated absolutely the contentions of those who say that UNSCOM under Butler is bent upon provocation. There was the ridiculous squall over missing or non-existent paperwork which, if we had listened to the preposterous foreign affairs spokesman for the Opposition, would have seen us wipe out 10,000 people over a missing Iraqi air force diary dating back to the 1980s. It was a preposterous call, which was rightly ridiculed by Liberal Democrat spokesmen as well as by our own Government.
What would the bombing, called for by the Opposition spokesman, have achieved? Would it have produced the diary or incinerated it? Does the diary exist or not? Cannot the Minister see that, to seek to elevate this paper chase into a casus belli against a now practically defenceless country simply reduces us to figures of ridicule?
Some of the documents do exist and Iraq has said that the inspectors can read them but not take them away. They must read them in the presence of Prakesh Shah, the respected UN special envoy. What is wrong with that? Are we to wipe out 10,000 Iraqis in order to exercise our inalienable right to photocopy Iraq's whole national archive? If we do, how much support does the Minister think that we will have for such barbarism in the world, on the Security Council or in the Arab League?
The problem with the documents, which Iraq says do not exist, is, in microcosm, the central problem of the whole issue. How can someone be asked to prove a negative? I could insist that the Minister is hoarding a silver threepenny bit in his house and, after he denies it, I could search his house year after year after year, all the while starving his wife and children. I might then say, finally, that the Minister must prove to me that he does not have a silver threepenny bit. That is a recipe for endless confrontation and misery.
Then there is that old reliable chestnut, kept in reserve for that rainy day when even UNSCOM cannot justify its odyssey in Iraq any more, and that is the issue of Kuwait's missing in action. Of course, the United States has great experience of using that one and has made it the stuff of half a dozen Rambo fantasies. The search for the bones of American MIAs kept the embargo against Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos going for literally decades, and it is being dusted down again for use in the Gulf as the final excuse for continuing the quiet massacre of sanctions.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway: I must press on.
There is an old saying that when one is in a hole, one should stop digging. Our policy towards Iraq is in a deep hole, neither moral nor effective, yet we seem incapable of devising an exit strategy to get us all out of that hole. Let us take the most recent act of excavation in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was involved—the much-trumpeted act of meeting and seeking to unify the Iraqi opposition based in London. It included everyone from the Turkoman Liberationists to something called the Democratic Monarchists who seek to put on a newly

minted throne in Baghdad one of two pretenders to the kingdom—Shan-if Ali Bin Hussain—who left Iraq when he was still a baby.
Does the Minister really believe that the Turkoman organisation—there are six such organisations of Turkomen, and Turkomen constitute no more than 6 per cent. of Iraq's population—or the Democratic Monarchists are serious contenders for power in Baghdad? There is also the so-called Iraqi National Congress, whose CIA funds have been discontinued because of the shambolic and corrupt incompetence it has displayed. Has the Minister spoken to his counterparts in friendly Jordan about the three prison sentences handed out to the INC leader, Mr. Chelabi, for his involvement in the Petra bank fraud scandal?
The Minister met the Shi'ite representatives in the form of Iraq's Islamic Supreme Council. Given the experience of those other holy warriors whom we financed, armed and trained, the Afghan Mujaheddin, is the Minister really sure that that is the company he wishes to keep? Is it the Government's policy to try to help the Shia revolution to power in Baghdad? Do the Government think that Iraq can be ruled by Turkomen or by the two Kurdish parties when they take a break from murdering each other?
I heard the Minister on the admirable Nicky Campbell's phone-in programme on Radio 5 yesterday. He said that he was meeting "constitutional" politicians. Really? On the very day, almost at the very hour when the Minister was pouring tea for his new friends, one of the "constitutional" activists threw two hand grenades into a crowd of people in the Shia holy city of Karbala.

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galloway: No, I will not give way any more.
Of course, the grenades did not hurt the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq at whom they were aimed, but they made some spectacular holes in the faces and bodies of the civilians who were in the crowd.
The Minister may say that he wants no part of that, although he did not quite say that on Radio 5. Does he think that that act of terrorism was unconnected with his meeting with the Opposition in London? Does he think that its timing was just a coincidence? Does he think that that will be the last act purchased, not by British money but by the $97 million voted by the US Congress for the armed overthrow of the Iraqi regime? Does he realise that that money will take us down the road that leads to the illegal mining of the harbours of Nicaragua by the Contras, to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to the blowing up of hotel foyers in Cuba and to the obscurantist barbarism of present-day Kabul?

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galloway: I am not giving way again.
Does the Minister realise that the road down which he is taking us is illegal under the very legislation that our Government rushed through both Houses of Parliament during the summer? The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 makes it an offence under British law to plan or encourage others to plan to commit any act which would be illegal in any other country. I know that,


because I was the person responsible for defeating the attempt made by the previous Government to introduce precisely that law.
Just what activities does the Minister imagine that the Iraqi Opposition, newly unified by him and refreshed by their $97 million, intend to plan from their bases in London? Would they be activities that are legal or illegal in Iraq? If the activities they plan are illegal in Iraq, will our Law Officers proceed to prosecute them?

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway: I am not giving way again.
If, as seems obvious, they do not prosecute, what will happen in the courts to any attempts to prosecute the madmen based in London who exhort others to fire upon tourists at Luxor or to murder Muslims at prayer in the mosques of Algeria? Does not the Minister know that what began with two hand grenades in Karbala will become car bombs in Baghdad, explosions in shopping malls in Mosul and carnage on the streets of Basra? Does he know that the process he unleashed on Monday is not only illegal under our laws but contrary to article 2 of the charter of the United Nations, paragraphs 4 and 7? It is contrary to the Arab states treaty against terrorism, signed by every Arab country, including Iraq, on 22 April this year and ratified by the Egyptian Parliament just last week.
Has the Minister seen the criticism of his new initiative from Amr Moussa, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, and from the League of Arab States? What does he have to say in response to that criticism? Will my right hon Friend say how he viewed the meeting yesterday at the US embassy in Grosvenor square between Martin Endick, the US Under-Secretary of State and the Iraqi opposition groups? Unlike Her Majesty's Government, the American Administration have pledged money and arms to our new friends. What were they discussing at the meeting yesterday? Were they planning how to use those arms? Why did the meeting take place in our capital city? Are our Government privy to the strategy that was being mapped out there?
That brings me to the nub of my argument, which is how far we have a policy of our own toward the Arabian Gulf and to what extent we are being subsumed in a crude, unsophisticated American policy which has done and will do great damage to our once pre-eminent position of influence in the middle east. We were guiding statecraft in the middle east when American cowboys were still ethnically cleansing red Indians.
Wherever I go in the middle east, our friends ask why we are following the USA so blindly. What is in it for us, they ask. They point, for example, to Kuwait, where Britain once had most of the business, and where now we have almost none. They point out that the Union Jack has been burned in the streets along with the Stars and Stripes in countries in which the BBC, the Beatles and Bobby Charlton were once considered the acme of all that was good in the western world.
The fact has not been missed in the middle east that there were no French aeroplanes lined up on the tarmac a fortnight ago to kill 10,000 Iraqis. There were no Italian planes, no Spanish, no German, no Dutch, no Canadian,

no Australian, no Russian, no Chinese, no Saudi, no Syrian, no Egyptian, no Moroccan, no Algerian and no Tunisian. There were no planes from the Emirates, and none from Jordan. There was no one from the coalition mustered in 1991, except for John Bull and Uncle Sam. Everyone in the world was out of step, except our Johnnie.
If we really want to end the apparently perpetual cycle of crisis and suffering, and the threats of violence, there are measures that we can and must take. First, we need a new head of UNSCOM, a head who is respected by his colleagues, by the Security Council and in the region.

Mr. Dalyell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Galloway: It will surprise hon. Members and the country that no Arab inspectors are permitted in UNSCOM. That means no Saudi scientists or Jordanian engineers. Why? A new UNSCOM leadership must make the effort to build bridges in the region across which success may come.
Secondly, light at the end of the tunnel must be offered to the Iraqis in exchange for their co-operation. Why is it so difficult to produce an agreed file of what has been achieved during eight years of UNSCOM work? Thousands of weapons have been destroyed, many hundreds of sites have been inspected and a huge monitoring apparatus has been put in place. A file might help us to put in perspective that which has not yet been achieved.
I am among those who believe that UNSCOM has almost completely destroyed Iraq's non-conventional military capacity. I say that not because I trust the word of the Iraqi regime, but because it is not logical that Iraq would continue to endure its current agony in order to hide things that it could easily reproduce once sanctions had been lifted. The awfulness of non-conventional weapons is that they exist in the minds of scientists and engineers in all countries. Nor are Einsteins an essential requirement; a group of crazed Japanese terrorists operating from a greenhouse halfway up mount Fujiyama produced enough sarin nerve gas to massacre the population of Tokyo, and they had a delivery system—a human courier—to introduce it to the Tokyo subway.
What is to prevent the Iraqi President from building up an arsenal again? The short answer is that we can do as much or as little to prevent that as we can to stop any dictator becoming over-powerful. Does the Indonesian dictatorship possess weapons of mass destruction? Yes, it does. Does it occupy other people's territory illegally? Yes, it does. Are we starving the Indonesian people, and proposing to bombard them until they give that territory up? No, we are not. The previous Government sold Indonesia all the arms it could buy, and even our Government have not placed a military sales embargo on Indonesia.
UNSCOM should provide a clear list of sites that it wishes to visit. That list can be as long as UNSCOM likes, but once the sites have been inspected and cleared, the matter must be at an end. Of course international monitoring of Iraq will have to continue. Of course an embargo on weapons and military hardware should remain. I have always been in favour of a military


embargo on Iraq, unlike the Conservative party. However, only when the murderous economic sanctions are finally lifted will the Iraqi people be able to breathe again.

Mr. Dalyell: UNSCOM tells us that it visited 496 sites, but found no violation.

Mr. Galloway: That is correct. It also inspected all the presidential sites. I remember the maps that were brought to the House. We were told that the presidential sites were bigger than Paris, but they turned out to be smaller than Paddington. They turned out to be rather smaller than the presidential sites occupied by our royal family in London, never mind the presidential sites that that family occupies outside the capital. I am against all palaces, and I am glad that the Iraqi ones have been searched, but absolutely nothing was found in them, despite their elevation into a casus belli in February. The sites have been searched over and over. Cameras have been placed on them, but there are no violations.
Let UNSCOM produce a list as long as it likes, so long as, once the list has been exhausted, there is no more moving of the goalposts, and no more pulling of rabbits from hats as excuses for continuing the agony. Only breathing men or women free of constant fear of hunger, illness and disease can turn their minds to politics, and to the need for democratic change in their country. That democratc change is sorely needed in Iraq.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I want to clarify one point, which is whether anything was found. Let me tell my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) exactly what has been found. Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under United Nations Security Council resolution 687, the UN Special Commission has destroyed or made harmless a supergun, 48 Scud missiles, 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tonnes of CW agents, 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, and biological warfare-related factories and equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency found a nuclear weapons programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin made an interesting speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also intervened. However, both my hon. Friends make it their policy in the Chamber to make statements that are simply not true. When we consider in detail the allegations that my hon. Friends make, and when we research the documents that they should have researched, we find that the truth bears no resemblance to their statements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin wrote off the comments made by Mr. Sami Salih, but that man seems to me to have been particularly well connected. He knew all the people involved, and he talked of a series of front companies managed by his friend that were responsible for the importation of defence and military equipment in breach of sanctions, and paid for from revenues for oil exported through Iranian waters and through the port of Dubai. Saddam Hussein has clearly constructed a mechanism by which to employ people to export oil in breach of sanctions to raise money to fund an internal weapons programme. That is a perfectly legitimate target for UNSCOM. We need to know what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin spoke as if there were no threat. Saddam Hussein presents a threat to people in Iraq, and to other people. My hon. Friend said that no aircraft were involved in the multi-country operation last week, but there may be a simple reason for that: many countries may not be prepared to be identified as involved in actions against Iraq for fear of Scud or chemical weapons attacks on them. If I lived in a neighbouring country, that would be my view.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would like to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am conscious of the time.
I want to move the debate on, to the position of the Iraqi National Congress and what has happened in Washington. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin knows, $95 million has been allocated to the INC for operations. The Americans have managed to find a way to justify that within their constitutional and legal arrangements. Congress has enacted legislation and has found a way. It recognises that the use of those weapons would inevitably undermine the regime in Baghdad, which must be the preoccupation and objective of all of us. The question is, what is the British position on the matter?
My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin set out a perfectly reasonable argument, outlining the international legal framework as he understands it, which in his view prohibits the INC in the United Kingdom from being involved in particular exercises overseas. I want it to be involved in such exercises. I want the Baghdad regime to be brought down. I believe that the civilised nations of the world have a responsibility to break down a dictator who threatens international stability and, in particular, stability in the middle east.
Without wanting to criticise my right hon. Friend the Minister—I support the Government's position, as he knows—I want to know why the Americans are prepared to be a little more robust than the British in the way in which they advocate their support for INC activities. We seem invariably to use the terminology, "It is not our role to be involved in bringing down a foreign leader." I think that we have a responsibility, and I want us to take a more robust position.
Finally, on sanctions busting, which I mentioned recently, I do not understand why we cannot block oil exports to Turkey from Baghdad by lorry. Information on those freight movements is well documented and those revenues, along with those secured by the sale of oil through Shatt al 'Arab and the port of Dubai, are funding the regime in Baghdad. I cannot see how it would be possible for Saddam Hussein to survive if those revenues were cut off. That is another approach, and we should be adopting it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin spoke eloquently for 50 minutes but, despite promises, did not offer us a way forward that would resolve the crisis, apart from suggesting that certain UNSCOM officials should be removed. That was his only recommendation.

Mr. Galloway: That is not true. My hon. Friend cannot have been listening.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech, and that was the only recommendation that


I could identify. I do not believe that it will resolve the problem. We need to be far more robust and to take positive action.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I think I am the only Member of Parliament who was born in a country in the Arab world—Yemen—and I simply want to make a brief point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Will he assure the House that he has had the fullest possible consultation with our allies in the Gulf?
I recently returned from a visit to Bahrain, where some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) were related to me informally—obviously, the formal position remains that all the Gulf countries fully support the actions that are to be taken by the United Kingdom. However, the House and the rest of the Arab world should be assured that we are consulting our allies and keeping them informed of what is happening, and that we will take no action unless we have their support.
There is a view that we are acting on our own, without consulting others. It is important for the Minister to use this opportunity to reassert the fact that we are going with the co-operation of countries that have always shown Britain good will and which want to continue to trade and invest in Britain and to remain our firmest and strongest allies.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), about stopping lorries crossing the Turkish border, the economy of Jordan is entirely dependent on the oil lorries, which go all the way from the Iraqi oilfields to Oman. The Iraqis sell the oil to Jordan at 60 per cent. of cost. The Jordanian economy refines it and pays in kind. It is entirely geared to what happens in Iraq. Therefore, there will be real problems with stopping the oil lorries.
As it is more important that the House hears the Minister than hears me, I shall make one request, which is that, before any military action is taken, a group of American and British officials should at least go to Baghdad to talk in depth to people such as Dr. Riyadh al Quasi. Many points of fact are in dispute. I understand many of the difficulties, not least with Israel, but one hears Iraqis say that there is a synagogue in Baghdad although there is not one in a number of other Arab states. I realise that the Jewish community there may be small and ancient.
There are many matters to be discussed—and before any precipitate military action is taken, for God's sake let us send a delegation, preferably with some Arab speakers, to talk things through properly.

Mr. Michael Howard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on obtaining this debate. It is even more timely today than it might have appeared to be when he applied for it. He made a powerful speech. At the heart

of his position is concern for the future of the Iraqi people. That is a proper cause and basis for anxiety, but it is a concern shared by the international community and reflected in the fact that, notwithstanding the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi regime, it has the facility to sell $10 billion of oil a year with which to finance the purchase of food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Alas, it is not a concern shared by that regime. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, Saddam Hussein chooses instead to spend that money
on weapons of war and the luxurious life style of his entourage".— [Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 611.]
The concern of the international community—and, I have no doubt, that of the hon. Gentleman as well—for humanity does not stop at the borders of Iraq. What lies at the heart of the anguished consideration that so many people have so often given to the questions that arise as a result of the activities of the Iraqi regime is concern for the people in the region as a whole, as well as and including the people of Iraq. We are dealing with a regime that has proved itself capable of the most brutal treatment both of its citizens and of others—a regime that would not hesitate not only to manufacture but to use weapons of mass destruction. We are dealing with a regime that has played fast and loose with the international community. It is a regime that poses a direct threat to humanity. If Saddam Hussein gets his way, countless lives will be at risk. That is what lies at the heart of our concern.
There is no lack of evidence to support that concern. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to the question marks that remain over 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals for the nerve gas UX; over material capable of producing large amounts of anthrax; and over missile warheads designed for chemical and biological weapons. Contrary to Iraqi assurances, traces of UX have been found in missile warhead fragments.
Reference has been made to the recent Iraqi defector, Sami Salih. I think that the hon. Member for Kelvin acknowledged that he was well placed to testify to the intentions of the Iraqi regime. Sami Salih has said that the regime never had any intention of complying with the terms of the United Nations resolutions on weapons inspections, and that he had seen
missiles hidden all over Iraq".
Another recent defector, Abbas al-Janati, told the BBC last week that rocket launchers are constantly moved between sites to outwit the UNSCOM teams, and that an army brigade was dedicated to undertaking anti-UNSCOM measures. The threat is real and appalling, and it has to be met with resolve. That real and appalling threat justifies the action taken by the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government, and it makes the most recent breach of faith by the Iraqi regime a matter of acute apprehension.
Last week, the Prime Minister told the House:
One of two things will now happen: either he"—
Saddam Hussein—
will co-operate, in which case inspectors will do their job, or he will fail to co-operate and … force will follow."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 612.]
Within days, the Prime Minister and the international community had received their answer; within days, the work of the UNSCOM inspectors was again being thwarted; and within days Iraqi obstruction and prevarication were once again the order of the day.
Of course, we are not arguing for a precipitate response. No doubt it is necessary for a cool assessment to be made of the latest crisis, and the head of UNSCOM may want to report to the Security Council on the latest position. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there was such a report before the Security Council last night, and give us a more comprehensive statement on the outcome of that meeting of the Security Council than has so far become available.
What we must not have in relation to Iraq is a repeat of the lamentable saga that took place earlier this year over Kosovo. Dire threat after dire threat was issued against President Milosevic of Serbia, not least by our own Foreign Secretary. Time after time, Milosevic was given what was described as a final warning, and, time after time, nothing was done. That is a classic recipe for how not to conduct foreign policy, and the failure of that policy can, alas, be measured in the loss of life and intense suffering that took place in Kosovo. The lesson of Kosovo is clear: if a threat cannot be fulfilled, do not make it.
The whole House will want to resolve the crisis over Iraq, including this latest episode, without needing to take military action—but resolved it must be, and if it can be resolved only through the use of force, Conservative Members will support any action that is clearly related to achievable objectives.
I hope that the Minister will answer a number of questions. Will he clear up the confusion that evidently exists over Government policy towards the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power? Last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested to the Prime Minister that a prime objective of western policy should be the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The Prime Minister appeared to agree with my right hon. Friend.
Since then, we have heard a great deal from the Government about their efforts to help the Iraqi opposition—I hope that the Minister will tell us about any progress that has been made on that front in the past few days—but BBC news was reporting this week that neither the United States nor Britain has declared a new policy of trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Which is true? I hope the Minister will clarify this confusion.
Can the Minister be a little more specific than he and others have been about the precise basis on which they affirm that legal authority for the use of force exists? Will he confirm that the Government believe that no further resolutions of the Security Council are necessary? Which resolutions provide the necessary authority for action, in the Government's view?
Despite what the hon. Member for Kelvin said on the matter—I did not follow his argument at all—and in so far as resolution 687 is relevant, will the Minister comment on the references in that resolution to the return of Kuwaiti prisoners of war? He will be aware that those prisoners of war are widely thought to be still alive and that some of them have reportedly been seen in Iraq. What part does their fate play in assessing Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions?
Will the Minister also say what assistance, if any, the Government plan to give to the Kurds in northern Iraq? He will be aware that there appears to be evidence of a recent rapprochement between the two factions. Can he tell the House more about the situation in that part of Iraq? Can he tell the House about the support for a United

Nations tribunal to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity, which he is reported to have announced on Monday? What action does he propose to take to implement that proposal? What time scale is involved? What support has there been from other quarters?
The world continues to face a threat to peace and humanity from the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is a measure of his success in the cat-and-mouse game at which he is so adept that Iraq is not the first item on our news headlines this morning, but its absence from those headlines should not lull either Saddam Hussein or anyone else into a false sense of security. I look forward to a robust and meaningful response from the Minister.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I have been charged with an almost impossible task—answering an enormous number of questions—and I shall do my best to satisfy the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) argued that it was time to consider a new policy, although my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intervened to make a valid point. It is worth while reminding ourselves of the chronology of events that have led to this most recent crisis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin said that the Iraqis deserve an element of light at the end of the tunnel. That is diplomatic language that we have heard on many occasions. My hon. Friend did not mention that the chronology is crucial: the Security Council agreed unanimously that we should seek a comprehensive review of the sanctions system. That announcement was made by the Security Council on a Friday in October; it was unanimous—there were no difficulties and no differences. My hon. Friend's new policy? It was announced.
What happened? In less than 24 hours, Baghdad had announced its refusal to co-operate with that comprehensive review. My hon. Friend has to explain to the House, and to the public outside, how it is possible for him to argue for a new way and a new approach, and then to suggest that the international community has not offered such an approach when the fact is that it has. It offered a comprehensive review, but it was rejected solidly, wholly—and, in my view, totally incomprehensibly—by Baghdad. That is the position that was taken.
Although my hon. Friend did not refer to it, there has been a litany of broken promises from Saddam Hussein. My hon. Friend is a great democrat—a great believer in word and integrity. Let me say to him that his argument, and his emotions, could be construed by those less charitable than me as an argument in favour of the broken word and rewarding the broken word.
Let us not forget that Iraq has promised co-operation on a number of occasions. On each occasion, that word—the word of the Iraqi leadership, not to the United Kingdom or to the United States, but to the international community—has been broken. Let me take four examples: first, the ceasefire agreement at the end of the


Gulf war. I had a wry smile on my face when my hon. Friend talked about Iraq voluntarily relinquishing Kuwait. At the end of that process—

Mr. Galloway: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett: No, my hon. Friend spoke for 50 minutes.

Mr. Galloway: What my right hon. Friend has said is false.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend spoke for 50 minutes.

Mr. Galloway: I did not say that.

Mr. Fatchett: At the end of the Gulf war, the Iraqi regime signed up to United Nations resolutions and made certain commitments. Those commitments were broken.
My hon. Friend knows that Saddam Hussein has broken his word three times in the past 12 months. First, last November, the then Russian Foreign Minister Primakov intervened to say that, with the word and co-operation of Baghdad, we could look forward to UNSCOM delivering what was necessary and that there was light at the end of the tunnel. The Russians invested a great deal in that. The Foreign Ministers of the P5—the five permanent members of the Security Council—met in Switzerland and made a deal with Primakov, but Saddam Hussein broke it within months. Secondly, Kofi Annan, to whom my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute, went to Baghdad and struck a deal with Saddam. On 5 August this year, that deal was also broken. The last agreement, made only 10 days ago, has again been broken by Saddam Hussein.
We are dealing with a man who, time and again, has broken his word and continues to do so. The fact is that, had Saddam Hussein co-operated, sanctions could have been lifted many years ago. The international community does not want sanctions to continue, but Saddam Hussein has simply refused to co-operate over the years.
My hon. Friend asked what the work of UNSCOM is for and challenged its work. Let me remind the House of what UNSCOM has already revealed: more than 38,000 chemical weapons and munitions; 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; 48 Scud missiles; a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other agents. That shows the extent of the threat of those weapons of mass destruction, meant for the people not just of Iraq but of the whole region.
My hon. Friend suggests that everything may now have been found. There is no guarantee of that. We know, however, that the Iraqis have a concealment committee, the purpose of which is to ensure that there is no compliance or co-operation. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe quoted a recent report in The Sunday Telegraph on that matter. The Iraqis are not only reluctant to co-operate, but have deliberately attempted to conceal evidence from UNSCOM. We are dealing with a regime that has used weapons of mass destruction, and I have no doubt that it will use them again.
I share the acute apprehension of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe about what has happened over the past few days. We have said that

it is another bad sign of Iraqi non co-operation. Saddam Hussein knows the consequences of continuing that non-co-operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the legal base for any military action that we take. We believe that we have that legal base. He also asked about the nature of compliance and co-operation. He is right to draw our attention to the fact that it is not just compliance with UNSCOM, however important that may be, but that there are other elements of co-operation and compliance. He is also right to say that the Kuwaiti prisoners of war form an important part of that.
As my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, human rights in Iraq are another element. We have heard much evidence and many quotes this morning, but the recent report produced by the UN special rapporteur, Max van der Stoel, is the most recent authoritative report. It shows that the number of people assassinated this year for their political views has reached four figures. That is the nature of Iraq, and that is the blood that is running down the streets of Baghdad. If people want emotive language, let them have the truth, which is that the Iraqi regime has used its weapons against its own people and killed tens of thousands of them.
My hon. Friend says that he is a great believer in democracy, human rights and socialism. I believe him; I share those views. However, one of the lessons of the 20th century is that, when one is mealy-mouthed and looks for excuses for a dictatorship, that dictatorship will continue and will create havoc wherever it can. Supporting human rights means standing up for those who will be subjected to violence by that regime in the future. I have no hesitation in doing that. I also have a view on new policy and co-operation by Iraq: we must not allow Iraq to get away with a short period of co-operation now before we undertake a comprehensive review of the sanctions regime; we must see true faith and commitment, and a willingness on the part of Iraq to carry out the commitment that it has made.
My hon. Friend spoke a great deal about the humanitarian position. I remind the House what the international community, led by Britain under this Government and the previous Government, has done in relation to "oil for food", and the effects of that programme. Let me give the correct figures. More than $5.2 billion has been raised through the sale of oil to purchase humanitarian aid; $2.5 billion-worth of foodstuffs have arrived in Iraq; and $440 million-worth of medicines have been delivered to Iraq, leading to a marked improvement in the availability of medicines and the number of operations carried out. Those are the latest figures produced by the UN Secretary-General, which for some reason were not included in my hon. Friend's speech. I shall send them to him if he so requires.

Mr. Galloway: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fatchett: No. My hon. Friend spoke for a long time, which was unusual in an Adjournment debate.
The UN special rapporteur made a number of other comments about human rights, none of which appeared in my hon. Friend's speech—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) keeps intervening from a sedentary position. He had a long time to put his case and he should now listen to the Minister's response.

Mr. Fatchett: The special rapporteur said that he holds Iraq primarily responsible for the precarious food and health situation in Iraq. His reasons are: Iraq's refusal to take advantage of the "oil for food" programme for five years, while failing to bring about an end to the sanctions regime; Iraq's prevarication in negotiations, causing the regular interruption of oil sales; and Iraq's discrimination against Iraqis living outside Baghdad, in terms of access to medical supplies. Let me add another reason: Iraq's discrimination against ordinary Iraqis who do not form part of the elite in the Iraqi regime.
Many other points have been raised about the Iraqi opposition. Given the short time available, I shall write to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on the points that they raised.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett: No.
I understand the humanitarian concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin. We share those concerns. Our actions have been designed to deal with them. I must stress to my hon. Friend that he should never lose sight of an evil—the existing regime in Baghdad, which has inflicted massive suffering on its people and on people in the region. He must never find himself, in the context of a debate, defending that regime. That is against any ethical view of the world and international relations.

1999 Eclipse (Cornwall)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister and I will at least agree on the fact that there will be a total eclipse of the sun in the late morning of 11 August 1999. In the United Kingdom, that will be seen across most of Cornwall and in parts of south-west Devon. It is the first place in the world that the effect will be seen, and will bring travellers from abroad. I am told that people follow eclipses wherever they occur around the globe. The rest of the UK will experience only a partial eclipse, so undoubtedly many people from other parts of the country will go to the south-west to see the total eclipse.
I admit that I do not know how many people will come to see the eclipse. The trouble is that no one knows, not even the Minister. However, we know that it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. The last total eclipse in the United Kingdom was 71 years ago, and the next one will not be for 92 years. It is no surprise that vast numbers of people want to see it. The majority of the accommodation in Cornwall has a waiting list, and vacancies are immediately filled if people hear of the likely problems and cancel their booking. Private properties are being let on the internet for as much as £3,500 a week to people travelling from as far afield as Japan.
The last total eclipse visible from mainland United Kingdom was on 29 June 1927. I have a picture of it taken by my father's brother, because his family travelled to see it. At that time, 3 million people went to see the eclipse in the north of England, despite the fact that most of them did not have a car or other personal transport. It remains the biggest-ever recorded movement of people by train in one day. If even a third of that number come to Cornwall, we shall have a huge national event in an area that already suffers from bottlenecks.
Moreover, 11 August 1999 is a Wednesday, so local people will be travelling to work. It is mid-harvest, the middle of the tourist season and in the middle of the school and university summer holidays. Cornwall and Devon are pretty much full at that time of year, even without an eclipse.
A large influx of visitors is expected at the busiest time of the year. Some still believe that the problem is being exaggerated, and that interest in the event will not be that great. They may be right, although it is a gamble, but the media do not seem to agree, and they are professionals at judging public interest. The BBC estimates that 6,000 members of the media will be in Cornwall. Sky News will deploy 80 per cent. of its satellite relay stations, and expects to reach 70 million people in broadcasts to 40 countries around the world.
Judging by international experience of other eclipses, the county expects 100,000 astronomers and specialist eclipse chasers to arrive. Interest will be further generated by the study of the eclipse as the central focus of the 1998–99 national core curriculum for science for every school in the country, with many schools already booking visits to the county.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I did not know that we had a Minister for the eclipse, but I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman. As the southern part of my constituency in the South Hams—the tip around


Salcombe, where I fortunately live—will have the same advantages for watching the eclipse as Cornwall, the public could view it from Devon, thereby reducing the number of people going to Cornwall, and the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers. People can come to my constituency to see the eclipse as well as go to Cornwall.

Mr. Taylor: I shall make reference to south-west Devon, because it faces the same problems, which are not unique to Cornwall, although we shall bear the brunt of them. West Cornwall will have the first and the longest eclipse, and will have the most problems—bookings certainly suggest that.
How many people will come, and can we cope? Some 500,000 people live in the county. The number of people expected during the eclipse period will far outreach the capacity of the county's infrastructure, which is able to cope with about 900,000 without special measures. That is only 150,000 more than the usual August holiday population, so anything in excess of 150,000 visitors for the eclipse will cause problems. However, we expect far more than that.
It is estimated that 1.2 million visitors can get into the county by road, provided that they spread out their travel over a realistic period rather than arrive immediately before and leave immediately after the eclipse. Travel about 10 days before and 10 days after the eclipse would be realistic. That would bring the population up to about 1.7 million, rather than the 900,000 that the existing infrastructure could cope with.
It is almost impossible to estimate how many people will arrive by train, on cruise liners—many people have already booked berths—by yacht and by air on the many special flights into Newquay that are being arranged. That is likely to bring a further 100,000 visitors.
By that stage, main roads will be jammed, as already happens on summer weekends in many parts of the county when hundreds of thousands travel to temporary camp sites. Sewerage and mains water provision for those sites is a serious problem.
Many estimates far exceed those figures. The general prediction is in excess of 2 million visitors, and some estimates have been as high as 4 million. When we met the chief constable, he said, "That can't be allowed. We can't take more than 2 million." I asked him how we can prevent them coming, once they are in their cars and on their way, let alone stuck in a traffic jam, but there is no obvious answer.
The Cornish riviera brochure gives us a feel of the problem. It is important to understand that this event is not being promoted by the tourist industry in Cornwall. Official brochures deliberately downplay the event, because of the concern about the number of visitors. The brochure provides
essential reading for intending visitors to Cornwall, before, during and after the 1999 eclipse of the sun
by giving "Dos" and "Don'ts". It says:

"Do allow plenty of time for your journey and travel early.
Do bring essential toiletries, water, or drinks and packaged food.
Do expect delays and traffic disruption, please be patient.
Do keep abreast of radio traffic information for local updates.
Use Park and Ride facilities wherever possible.

Don't set off without a firm confirmation of accommodation.
 Don't travel on the day of eclipse.
Don't observe the eclipse without following the recommended safety precautions."

Mr. Adrian Sanders: The danger to the naked eye is an important point to mention. I am particularly concerned about children and visitors who may not be aware of the information available in the build-up to this event. Could the Government provide public information to ensure that people protect their eyes in the hour before the eclipse?

Mr. Taylor: The Government have an extremely important role that goes way beyond anything that we can do in the two counties.
I want to concentrate on the capacity in the area because, if it is exceeded, the worst case scenario would be a disaster involving huge road gridlocks, supply failure problems for food, money and petrol, mains water supply failures with taps running dry and emergency services unable to reach casualties or incidents.
The Minister may think that this is primarily a local issue. It will happen locally, but if an unexpected natural event caused such problems, huge support would be available. Because it is predictable, so far no support is available.
There are two key problems, the first of which involves sewerage and water. South West Water's best estimate is that it can purify and distribute water at a rate that would sustain a population of between 900,000 and 1 million, which is half the estimate of the number of visitors. South West Water has said that the take-up of spare bedrooms in domestic residences by friends, family and unofficial bed and breakfast guests will use all the available capacity of sewage treatment plants. That does not take account of any of the planned temporary camp sites, one of which will take 200,000—a population the size of Plymouth.
All camp site portaloo waste will have to be disposed of by other means, and not during the eclipse, because of traffic congestion and other difficulties. That is likely to be difficult, and will cause concern about noise, odour and pollution. We do not know whether it will be possible to supply pure water at reasonable pressure to those sites. South West Water is currently working on that. It is essential to draw Ministers' attention to the funding difficulties, and to the severe risk to public health from water and sewage problems.
Secondly, the emergency services will be affected. In a monthly newsletter to Cornwall's 312 general practitioners, the local medical committee recently announced:
Eclipse Health Tip of the Month—Don't get pregnant in November".
The committee believes that, nine months from now, jams caused by the eclipse could make it impossible for expectant mums to get to hospital in time.
That sounds quite funny, but the problem will not affect just expectant mums—although in that regard it is actually fairly serious. Any casualty may find it difficult to get to a hospital. Health services have already expressed concern about how they will cope when so many people flood into the county. Normal clinics may have to be suspended, and doctors and district nurses may have to be positioned around the county in order to deal with casualties, rather


than assuming that ambulances will be able to take casualties to hospitals. The ambulance service has told me that it is budgeting for at least one extra air ambulance, as well as motor-cycle medics and extra ambulances. It believes that it may have to call on the Royal Air Force to give helicopter assistance, and that it may also need the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service.
The key problem is a combination of severe congestion and the fact that the county is surrounded on three sides by water. For the most part, there are no neighbouring services to help out if ours are overstretched. There is only one main general hospital in Cornwall, along with Derriford hospital, which serves east Cornwall and the Plymouth area. Although much excellent work is already being put into planning, there is only so much that local services can afford—and that, of course, will have a knock-on effect on the provision of services during the rest of the year. Moreover, there is only so much that local services can do at any price, because of the practical difficulties.
The combination of hot weather, camping, overheated vehicles and open-air festivals is bound to cause a problem. A large number of festivals are being organised, although the best advice would be not to organise them. The difficulty is deciding what to do with all those people for all that time, as the eclipse will last for only about 20 minutes. It will be a problem either way. I understand, however, that some major bands want to give concerts on the day, and that will bring into the county people who would not have gone there to see the eclipse.
The usual summer increase in crime will be amplified. That increase inevitably happens when extra people are present, but in this case the police will be further stretched by the need for traffic control, and by the many large events taking place. The police and other emergency services have already cancelled all leave, and will be fully manned from 30 July until 22 August, at considerable cost. I pity them: having had no holiday in the summer, they will then be allowed no holiday in the new year because of the millennium celebrations.
The Devon and Cornwall constabulary has made an initial request to the Ministry of Defence for assistance for all three services with traffic control, recovery, the provision of helicopters for route monitoring and medical facilities during the two main weeks. Measures exist allowing the Government to declare a need for military aid to the civil community, and to agree to finance it from the contingency fund. Such aid may be needed to assist the south-west's emergency services. Support already being considered goes as far as the use of a field ambulance regiment for field hospitals, the secondment of additional doctors and dentists to help with primary care, the provision of helicopters for the movement of emergency supplies and for traffic monitoring, and the employment of the Royal Engineers to help with roads, tracking on camp sites if the weather is wet, and water supply. Someone said to me, "If it is wet, there will be no problem." On the contrary, if it is wet there may be 2 million people in the area with nothing to look at, experiencing appalling conditions. They will be on temporary camp sites, with no proper sewerage and water.
When I asked the fire service how it would cope, a senior officer admitted that, if road congestion is anything like as severe as it is expected to be, the service does not know how it would transport firefighters to emergencies, especially if they are on the main roads.
I have already raised the costs of the eclipse with the Prime Minister. They will have to be borne by ratepayers, the health service and the police, and they will be considerable. The estimate provided by Cornwall county council following consultation with all the emergency services, and with local government, is about £5 million. That amount has been committed, but the need is greater, and many local authorities do not think that they will be able to meet that need. The police have asked the Home Office for additional support, but have received no positive response. Work is under way to produce a more co-ordinated effort. I think that there will be results early in the new year, and I hope that whichever Minister is responsible will agree to a meeting.
Without extra help, our ambulance, police and other services will struggle to cope. Central Government will benefit from extra revenue generated by the eclipse, and businesses in the counties will certainly benefit, but emergency and other public services will bear a cost with no extra return.
When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister, he said that funding mechanisms allowed for it. I think that, after a little more research, the Minister will agree that there is no eclipse fund as such, and that the source of any extra funding is not obvious.
I stress that we need not just financial but practical support. I do not expect the Minister to promise huge sums today—I have participated in too many Adjournment debates to expect that—but I hope that the debate will help to focus Ministers' attention on a problem that has not received the national attention it deserves, perhaps because an even bigger event, the millennium, will take place later in the same year. The Jubilee line extension may or may not be ready for the dome, but it is certain that no new roads will be built to cater for the eclipse in Cornwall.
I am very pleased about the vast amount of preparation being undertaken by local councils, co-ordinating groups, emergency services and the Cornish eclipse county planning co-ordinator, but I fear that it is not enough. The Government should recognise that this is a national event, which will need national support. The problem is exacerbated by an accident of geography, and by sheer uncertainty about the number of people who may arrive. That makes planning next to impossible.
As recently as last night, the Government were not sure who would respond to the debate. The issue, after all, is covered by the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and, of course, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I welcome this Minister, and suggest that it would be practical to give our county co-ordinating committee a point of contact, in helping to co-ordinate the Government's response.
I do not know whether the Minister fancies the job, but what we need is a Minister for the eclipse.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I thank the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for giving us an opportunity to discuss an issue that has already been a subject of considerable debate, and of careful planning in Devon and Cornwall. I appreciate all the concerns that he raised.


I thank him for his offer of a new job, but, for reasons that I shall explain, I must decline it. I already have a number of responsibilities, and I believe that the mechanisms that will be provided will enable Devon and Cornwall to respond to the challenge.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this will be the first total eclipse visible from the UK mainland since June 1927, and it will be of interest to many people. It has obvious implications for the police, local authorities and other emergency planning services. I recognise that, and will describe the steps that will be taken. I also recognise the health issues, and will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about advising the public of the risks involved in viewing the eclipse with the naked eye.
The Devon and Cornwall constabulary will, of course, play a major role in managing the influx of extra visitors. I understand that, in recent months, the chief constable has raised with the Home Office the issue of the additional expenditure arising from the major public order operation that the police will need to undertake because of the large number of visitors who are expected to travel to Cornwall.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for emergency planning in England and Wales, expects local authority emergency planners to deal with issues arising from major incidents or emergencies according to the principles of integrated emergency management. That is an all-hazards approach to emergency planning, which encourages local emergency planners to plan with all the agencies that are likely to be involved in a major incident response. The chief characteristics of plans developed according to the principles of integrated emergency management are that they should be non-specific and flexible, and that they should work well regardless of an incident's cause. They are therefore ideal to handle an event such as the eclipse.
It is fundamental to arrangements for dealing with an emergency that the first response should be at local level. If the scale of an incident overwhelms local resources, the first recourse is usually to mutual-aid arrangements with services in adjacent areas, and the second to military aid. The eclipse is not an unforeseen emergency, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell recognised; it is not a sudden danger requiring immediate action. An eclipse is an event for which there has been sufficient time for local services to plan and, accordingly, to seek assistance under mutual-aid arrangements if that is required.
From time to time, all police forces must deal with major public events, some of which are regular and some unexpected. The role of the police in controlling any outbreaks of disorder is to preserve the peace, uphold the law and prevent the commission of offences. Police tactics and decisions on how to achieve those objectives are a matter for the independent operational judgment of chief police officers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expects that additional costs arising from unique occasions should usually be met from the force's budget and by using its reserves. In certain exceptional circumstances, my right hon. Friend would consider an application for a special grant, although such grants are rarely given, as the criteria are tough. The additional expenditure incurred by the force must be exceptional and of a scale likely to threaten its efficiency.
I understand that Devon and Cornwall constabulary has estimated that the additional cost of policing the eclipse next year will be about £600,000. That is less than half of 1 per cent. of the force's current budget. On the basis of information so far provided by the Devon and Cornwall police authority, it is doubtful whether it will be able to meet the criteria for a special grant that have previously been applied. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has had a working party looking into the issue, is of the opinion that forces should not ordinarily be given special assistance and that Government funding should be allocated through the police funding formula.
As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell knows, police funding is allocated by means of a needs-based formula. Devon and Cornwall constabulary has done quite well under it. Over the past two years, the force has been able to increase its budget by more than the national average—by 4 per cent. in 1997–98 and by 4.5 per cent. in 1998–99. In those years, the average increase for police authorities in England and Wales was just 3.7 per cent. In the current financial year, Devon and Cornwall police authority has a budget of £167.4 million, which is a £7.2 million increase over the previous year.
In 1997–98, Devon and Cornwall constabulary was able to increase the number of police officers by 98 to 2,962. That contrasts with an overall reduction in police numbers in England and Wales of 302. At the same time, recorded crime in the Devon and Cornwall police area fell by 8.4 per cent., compared with an average reduction in England and Wales of 7.8 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 21 July that, over the next three years, police funding would increase by £1.24 billion. Overall police funding will increase by 2.65 per cent. next year, a further 2.8 per cent. in the following year and an extra 4 per cent. in 2001–2. Provisional police funding settlements for each police authority for 1999–2000 will be announced, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell knows, in the reasonably near future, at the same time as the local government settlement.

Mr. Steen: Is it the view of the Minister and the police that there will not be an invasion of tourists to watch this sight?

Mr. Raynsford: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell rightly made the point that no one knows for sure how many people will visit. One cannot anticipate for such an event. The point that I am trying to get across is that the potential scale of additional pressures can largely be foreseen, and measures can be implemented to ensure that this opportunity—it is an opportunity, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and others have emphasised—can be taken without unreasonable and disastrous consequences. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell has raised serious issues, which need to be addressed.
I have covered the subject of police funding, and shall move on to the other services for which the eclipse will have implications, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell rightly emphasised. Emergency planning in the water industry is one of the other main areas affected. In June, under the provisions of section 208 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the Department issued the Security and


Emergency Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1998. It requires all water and sewerage companies in England, including South West Water, to make contingency plans, based on the integrated emergency planning concept, to cater for all types of emergency, irrespective of the cause.
The direction specifies the main resources and facilities that water companies should provide in an emergency and the need to consult and co-operate with all relevant bodies. It states that priority should be given to the domestic needs of sick, elderly and disabled people, hospitals, schools and other vulnerable sectors of the community. It also states that regard should be given to the needs of non-domestic users and, in accompanying guidance, examples of livestock and essential food industries are given.
One of the most significant things in the new direction, which was not in the preceding 1989 direction, is that it provides for the Secretary of State to specify the amount of water that an undertaker should provide in an emergency. Companies have been notified that that is 10 litres of drinking water a head per day. New plans to comply with the direction must be submitted to the Secretary of State by 1 April—well before the eclipse—having first been subjected to independent audit.
It is important that all areas that are likely to be affected by the extra work created by the eclipse should keep in close contact. I know that, over the past 12 months, there has been a series of inter-agency meetings involving all those with an interest. An emergency planning co-ordination group has been taking a strategic overview of the problem and, at operational level, the plan review working party has been considering the issues. Such cross-service work is vital in identifying potential problems and producing appropriate solutions.
On resources, I know that there have been calls for the Government to use available measures—under what is known as the Bellwin scheme—to help local authorities cope financially with emergencies. The scheme is designed to prevent an undue financial burden falling on council tax payers of an authority that is affected by an emergency or disaster that threatens life or property. An incident for which assistance is sought must involve clearly exceptional conditions by local standards, and damage to local authority infrastructure for communities must be exceptional, too. In the past, the scheme has generally been activated following events such as freak storms or floods—most recently, severe flooding across the midlands over Easter.
On the face of it, expenditure that authorities might incur as a result of the eclipse seems likely to be outside the scheme's criteria. However, we would of course consider any case that an authority might make for the

activation of the scheme. If some of the worst prognoses of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell turned out—unfortunately—to be true and there were very serious problems, the authority would unquestionably be in a position to seek assistance under the Bellwin scheme. I hope that that will not be so. I hope that, with sufficient forward planning, the risk can be minimised. However, I would not rule out altogether the need for such assistance in the event of a serious breakdown of normal administrative arrangements.
As I have stressed, careful planning will be absolutely vital to make the most appropriate arrangements and, indeed, to make the most of the opportunity that is presented by this unusual event. Many more people in Devon and Cornwall will benefit through offering bed-and-breakfast facilities to visitors. Farmers and other landowners stand to gain considerably by offering campsites to cater for the expected 500,000 additional campers who cannot be accommodated on existing sites. I understand that special provisions allow sites on which camping would not normally be permitted to be brought into use for a limited period. That clearly provides an opportunity to cope with the numbers of people, and should raise income for farmers who have made available sites for such use.
I have seen estimates that bed-and-breakfast charges and campsite fees for extra visitors could bring in more than £150 million to the area. The take-up in the unused capacity for hotels and other accommodation will also generate significant income. Given last summer's disappointing weather, I know that several hotel and tourist interests in the west country have been looking for ways in which to increase their revenue. I hope that the eclipse will provide such an opportunity. Obviously, there is an opportunity to encourage people to make a proper holiday of visiting Cornwall, rather than just going for the day. That will benefit the local economy.
The situation is therefore by no means all doom and gloom. Indeed, there is no doubt that people in other areas in Britain wish that the eclipse could be viewed from their location. I noted the naked appeal of the hon. Member for Totnes for people to go to his constituency rather than Cornwall to view the eclipse. The eclipse will present the local tourism industry with a great opportunity to promote itself in both pleasure and business to the vast number of visitors whom the major event will attract. Many visitors will be visiting the area for the first time and may be encouraged to go back, which would be in the long-term interest of the west country's economy. I am certain that local businesses, local people, local authorities and others who have a wealth of experiences in tourism will ensure that best use is made of this wonderful opportunity for Devon and Cornwall.

South Downs

1 pm

Dr. Desmond Turner: I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with the south downs, having passed through the area on their way to Brighton for a party conference if at no other time. The downs comprise a fairly unique and sensitive area. They cover a large area, stretching from Winchester to Eastbourne, and are bordered by fairly dense population centres. The area is very dear to the public throughout virtually all south England.
In 1949—when the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed—the south downs were one of 12 areas considered for designation as a national park. As it was thought that the downs had been too damaged by "digging for victory" in the war, it was decided that they should not be so designated. None the less, it was decided that the downs should be designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Even in 1949, the downs clearly met the basic criteria for national park status. I submit that, today, the downs even more fully meet the criteria.
National parks must meet four important criteria, the first of which is that they should comprise extensive tracts of open countryside. The downs cover a total area of 1,375 sq km, which, in anyone's book, is quite a large area. The south downs are larger than four existing national parks. There is no question about the natural beauty of the downs. No one disputes their designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Do the downs offer opportunities for open-air recreation? Every year, 32.5 million people resort to the south downs, demonstrating their enormous leisure use. Moreover, leisure use is greater in the downs than in any existing national park. The downs certainly score on that criterion.
What about the proximity of the south downs to population centres? They are close to Southampton, Portsmouth, Winchester, Brighton and Hove, and Eastbourne. That does not even include—

Mr. Tim Loughton: And Worthing.

Dr. Turner: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for forgetting his wonderful constituency.
Undoubtedly there are large populations right next to the south downs. Moreover, it is only a short way up the road to the vast population centre of London. The south downs probably have more people living within very easy reach than any existing national park.
The south downs clearly meet the criteria for national park status. Comments by the Countryside Commission and others to the effect that the downs are not an upland area, and hence do not meet recent interpretations of the criteria, are poppycock. Quite simply, the criteria were established in 1949, since when no national park has been created. There has therefore been no reinterpretation of the criteria since 1949the reinterpretation argument is nonsense.
The south downs can match existing national parks also in their areas of unspoilt pasture and woodland, which—as a percentage of total area—exceed the comparable areas of at least four national parks. There can be no question but that the downs qualify as a national park.
All parties to the argument are agreed that something must be done to give greater protection to the downs.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: rose

Dr. Turner: I have a choice. I shall take the intervention of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Countryside Commission has strongly recommended that the south downs should not be designated as a national park? Would he care to comment on the fact that we are all agreed that the downs should have the highest protection, and that the commission's recommendation possibly has something to do with arguments to which he has not yet done justice?

Dr. Turner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was about to deal with that very point.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the same point?

Dr. Turner: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal with one intervention at a time. My time is very short.
As I said, everyone agrees that current protection for the downs is inadequate. Several quite serious recent events have demonstrated the impotence of current protection. The only argument is whether the south downs should have national park status or be treated, under the Countryside Commission's recommendations, as an enhanced area of outstanding natural beauty. I should like quickly to examine what is offered by the options, to determine how well they might meet the objectives that must be met to protect the downs.
Conservation is a primary objective. Reconciling conservation with the demands of leisure use also must be a primary objective. If we opt for enhanced AONB status, we will address only conservation issues and not leisure use issues. That is a very important defect in the Countryside Commission's proposals. Conversely, a national park is established with the precise powers to address both sets of issues.
National parks are already covered by strong planning legislation, which would provide the minimum powers needed to protect the south downs. The only power provided by enhanced AONB status would be guaranteed, statutory consultation. That is not sufficient. I have been there—having served on county council planning committees—and have been through paragraph 5 consultations. I know that, sometimes, a district planning authority has already decided on a matter before it is referred to a council for consultation. Such a power is too weak to be of any real use.
The option of legislation should be very carefully considered. We have two choices on legislation. If we protect the downs under the 1949 Act, we will require no further legislation, because all the necessary powers already exist. The Secretary of State would only have to make an appropriate order. Subsequently, there would have to be a public inquiry to determine the boundaries of the area, which would be designated as a park within about 18 months.
If the downs were designated as an enhanced AONB, a Bill would have to be introduced, as there are insufficient legislative powers to make such a designation.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware of a very good publication, from the Council for National Parks, entitled "Meeting the Challenge"? Although the publication deals specifically with the New forest, it makes some very useful general points on protecting national parks, particularly ensuring that decisions are taken independently of local vested interests.

Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I am aware of the publication. I am aware also that a debate similar to that on the south downs is occurring on the New forest. The forces ranged on either side of both debates are fairly comparable. I have great sympathy with the claims of the New forest, which I know well from my childhood. I think that my hon. Friend and I would probably agree on the issues.
As I said, if the south downs are to be made an enhanced AONB, a Bill will be required. I do not have to remind hon. Members of current pressures on parliamentary time. At the current rate of progress, there is no real chance of the House passing any such measure in the next five years or so—if by then. Moreover, all we will have achieved in so doing is a measure of protection for the south downs that is inferior to that which is available immediately, by giving them national park status under current legislation.

Mr. Tyrie: We all want to do our best for the south downs, which is such a beautiful area. However, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of local people have made it clear that they would prefer to continue with the existing arrangements and not have a national park? There are 14 local authorities, only one of which—the hon. Gentleman's—has said that it wants to go ahead with national park status. As far as I am aware, the other 13 have made clear their opposition to it.
I came fresh to the subject, having moved into the area. I listened carefully to what people had to say before reaching my view that the overwhelming majority of local people want the existing arrangements, broadly speaking, to continue.

Dr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention as I was about to deal precisely with his point. In fact, the overwhelming majority of those who have been consulted are in favour of a national park.

Mr. Tyrie: Not the local authorities.

Dr. Turner: Of the 14 authorities consulted, 13 simply took a decision in committee—they did not consult a single member of their electorates. However, Brighton and Hove

consulted people living in Brighton and Hove, and the response was overwhelmingly in favour of national park status.

Mr. Loughton: How many?

Dr. Turner: Hundreds. A national opinion poll conducted by the Ramblers Association showed that in the Meridian television area some 84 per cent. of the public were in favour of national park status. Nationally, of all those aware of the debate, 83 per cent. were in favour. Those who thought that the area should not be given national park status were 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively.

Mr. David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend share my view that the recommendations from the Countryside Commission are flawed on three counts—first, the inadequate nature of the consultation process; secondly, the commission's failure to report accurately the response to that consultation process; and thirdly, the sheer lack of understanding of the criteria for national park status and the legal framework, as revealed in the report and recommendations?

Dr. Turner: I concur with my hon. Friend on all those points.
Time is running out, so I must try to conclude. We must ask, and the Countryside Commission must answer, one important question. As there is already legislation on the statute book to give the best possible protection and management of the south downs—which will give the body a status that will enable it to get funds from the European Union and other sources—why does the Countryside Commission recommend something that will require further legislation, will be exceedingly difficult to deliver and will provide a second-class alternative to national park status?
What I am about to say may also apply to the New forest. What is going on? Are we dealing with entrenched local interests—dare I say landlords? Is it a confrontation which, in a way, mirrors the confrontation between our two Houses? I suspect that there is slightly more to the Countryside Commission's arguments than meets the eye.

Mr. Loughton: On the point about consultation, I am not impressed by the fact that only several hundred people responded out of a 500,000 population in West Sussex, and the same applies to East Sussex. The Sussex Downs conservation board includes representatives from 11 district councils, two county councils and the unitary authority. It has had an accountable and democratic part to play in planning.
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting taking powers from local authorities that are answerable to their electorates. Is he really saying that the views of the councils that did not consult do not matter?

Dr. Turner: I am not saying that the views of those councils do not matter, but surely the hon. Gentleman cannot criticise consulting the public and claim that consulting a committee provides the same democratic accountability. Clearly it does not. There were thousands of responses from the public, strongly—overwhelmingly—in favour of national park status.
It is not necessary to take all planning powers away from district councils—that does not have to happen. It has been suggested that a strategic plan should be drawn up for a national park, to which all planning authorities should be party, and that the implementation of the plan should be delegated back to the local authorities; but that implementation must be consistent with the national park strategic plan that has been developed. So with respect, neither of the hon. Gentleman's points holds water.
The logic of national park status for the south downs is irrefutable. It is the obvious solution and it requires no new legislation. The alternatives not only require new legislation, but will ultimately provide an inferior measure of protection. The overwhelming interest that should be considered is the public concern to protect and manage the future of the south downs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has been a tireless campaigner for national park status for the south downs. I congratulate him on securing this debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity to reply.
The Government are still looking very carefully at the options for the future sympathetic management of the south downs. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by not being able to tell him and the House today of any final decision. However, we do hope to be in a position to say something very soon.
Ministers are thoroughly convinced of the merits of the south downs as an outstanding landscape of national significance. It is one which receives an enormous number of visitors annually and which is, to many people, quintessentially English. I am glad to have this opportunity to remind my hon. Friend and others of my recent visit to the south downs. Thankfully, it was on a beautiful day at the end of September. As the guest of the Sussex Downs conservation board, I was shown some of the most famous and popular sites for visitors, including Devil's dyke and Ditchling beacon. Indeed, from Ditchling beacon I discovered how it is possible to get a real feel of the rolling "whale backed Downs" and the mosaic of landscape laid out at their feet.
What was striking about the downs was how remote a feel there is in countryside that is in such proximity to coastal towns and communities. It is incredible to find oneself in such a wilderness only a short distance from coastal resorts. I have had a number of requests from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to come and see more of the downs, and I intend to take up those invitations. Arrangements are in hand to do so.
I have had a number of meetings with those, from both sides of the national park debate, who are deeply concerned about the future of the downs.
When I visited the downs I had the benefit of having as local guides my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Kemptown, as well as leading officials from the Sussex Downs conservation board. I also had a meeting in Brighton with representatives of the South Downs campaign group,

which is the grouping of national and local organisations campaigning for a national park. I have since met again some of the interested parties at the Department in London and with several other people, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has also discussed the issue with many of those who have a particular interest.
I assure hon. Members that I understand how important the downs are as a recreational resource for their constituents and for many other people living in East and West Sussex, Hampshire and further afield, including the many who enjoy visiting from the London area. I have many times heard quoted the figure of 32.5 million visitors to the downs each year, which is more than twice the number visiting the Lake district. Whatever the accuracy of that figure, what is important is that we can be sure that the south downs, like a number of other areas of national beauty, are not only visited by an enormous number of people who come for all sorts of good recreational reasons, but enjoyed on a regular basis by those lucky enough to live nearby.
What most struck me, as a visitor to the area, is that so many people feel so strongly about the south downs. Whether they declare themselves as for or against a national park, they usually want the same things. Both those who are for and those who are against a national park want a level of protection against major new development that respects the importance of the downs as a nationally recognised landscape and a resource for recreation and for biodiversity. They all want a body that is able to work with others to achieve objectives in a recognised strategic planning framework; one that has an assured future and an appropriate level of funding; and one that is able to manage the downs sympathetically and look after the interests of both local people and the downs' many visitors.
I assure the House that the Government want those things too, and that we are going to deliver them. We want to make sure that we get the precise choice of mechanism right, because the solution must be a long-term one. That is why I am not yet in a position to tell the House which of the options the Government will finally back.
Anyone with an interest in this debate will know that earlier this year the Countryside Commission, as the Government's statutory adviser, advised against a national park in the south downs and in favour of establishing a new statutory conservation board. That recommendation reflected the commission's assessment of the suitability of the south downs for national park status, which it has maintained since the 1950s. It does not constitute a judgment on the quality of the landscape in the south downs, because the legislation does not recognise a difference between the quality of landscapes in national parks and those in areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is the designation that already applies to the south downs.
The recommendation reflects the way in which the Countryside Commission has applied the criteria in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that, if we conclude that it is right to do so, we shall ask the commission to look again at the way it operates those criteria.
I have heard criticism from some groups of the way in which the Countryside Commission carried out its consultation process about the south downs in late 1997 and early 1998. I have no wish to enter into the debate on that issue now; suffice it to say that the Government have listened to all the views expressed. My Department has received hundreds of letters since the Commission's advice was received. Brighton and Hove council should be congratulated on the consultation that it carried out locally, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is legitimate for him to say that, at least in his area, people can feel confident that the consultation was broad and varied.
The Countryside Commission's advice to the Government on protected areas contains a number of strands. It is not only about the south downs, important though they are, but about the way forward in the New forest, which we shall have an opportunity to debate tomorrow. It also contains a considerable number of wider recommendations about the protection, funding and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Hon. Members will understand that there is a lot of interplay between these questions, and that together they are of some complexity. Those considerations have meant that it has taken some time to move toward our conclusions. To put it simply, we want to get the answers right.

Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister address the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) about the legislative process? Will he tell us whether the Government would grant time before five years were up to push through legislation, if the existing status were enhanced instead of the national park alternative being chosen?

Mr. Meale: We shall give due consideration to the whole process and to the results of the consultations that have been carried out. As I said, we want to take a decision and make an announcement, but we have to get it right.
The Countryside Commission has recommended that the south downs should be the first area to benefit from a statutory AONB conservation board. It believes that that would build upon the success already achieved by the Sussex Downs conservation board, which was set up jointly by the local authorities on the Sussex downs and the Countryside Commission in 1992. Ministers have praised the performance of the Sussex Downs conservation board since it was set up and I echo that praise today. The establishment of the conservation board was purely a voluntary move toward working together by

local authorities, assisted by the Countryside Commission. They deserve praise for the effort and the funding that have gone and continue to go into it.
However, what is being sought now is quite different—a permanent body with a statutory framework and guaranteed funding. We are still looking in detail at the commission's recommendations on statutory conservation boards, as primary legislation would be needed to provide for them. The Commission recommended that they should be funded as a partnership, with 50:50 local and national funding. Ministers have since had a considerable postbag from local authorities managing AONBs, suggesting that the AONBs should be funded like national parks.
The Government want to do significantly more for AONBs, but we have to determine how far and how fast we can go, and what the most effective mechanisms are. As a start, we have already provided an extra £2.5 million for the new countryside agency to spend in AONBs next year. That will more than double the budget that the Countryside Commission has so far had for AONBs.
For the purposes of today's debate, the key question is whether the south downs should have the first of a new series of statutory conservation boards, rather than become a national park. As I have said, we are not ready to announce any decision yet. If we bring forward proposals for primary legislation to provide for AONB conservation boards, we shall have to take into account how the opportunity of primary legislation can best be used to provide for the future needs of the protected areas generally, including providing the best solution for both the south downs and the New forest. There are many questions involved, including the interplay with the planning system, local democracy and the regional agenda; the precise powers and responsibilities of the authorities concerned; and the membership and funding arrangements.
I understand the urgency felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about providing a long-term solution for the management of the south downs. The Sussex Downs conservation board currently has funding until March 2001, but we have said that we want to settle on a long-term solution well before the current funding arrangements expire. I assure the House that we will provide that solution as soon as we can.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, and hon. Members on both sides of the House and of differing points of view, for giving us the opportunity to consider these points today. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend, along with other hon. Members present today—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.

CJD and Human Growth Hormone

Mr. Mark Oaten: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the plight of five families who have lost a family member from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as a result of human growth hormone treatment. Their position has been made worse by the fact that to date they have not been entitled to any compensation because a judicial ruling in 1996 stated that damages could be paid only to victims who started the treatment, or had the majority of it, after July 1977.
The issue concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have witnessed the trauma experienced by the families involved. My constituents, Mavis and Tony Lay, lost their 22-year-old daughter Alison to that terrible disease in 1985. Alison was a clever, bubbly girl who was adored by many people. She was the first person in Britain to die from CJD. Her parents' anguish has been made worse by their continuing fight for compensation from the Department of Health.
Let me set out the necessary background details to the case. Between 1959 and 1985, nearly 2,000 children were given human growth hormone derived from donated glands. The Medical Research Council ran the programme as a clinical trial until 1977, when the Department of Health assumed full control.
Although the programme proved successful and was in great demand, not just in Britain but throughout the world, a number of concerns among leading scientists raised the likelihood of a link with CJD. During clinical trials, Dr. Alan Dickinson of the Agricultural Research Council, a veterinary scientist who was working on scrapie, alerted officials at the Medical Research Council to the risk of CJD being transmitted through human growth hormone. He consequently made four suggestions on how to improve the safety of the hormone. Two were never acted on, the third was only partially implemented and the fourth was not put into force until 1980—three years after the Department of Health started running the treatment. The Medical Research Council appointed two virologists as consultants, but that was not until the medical trials had been completed.
The programme also failed to fall within the regulatory framework of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956 or the Medicines Act 1968, so the hormone escaped any regulation in terms of its safety or purity. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that one senior Government scientist recorded that the laboratories where the hormone was prepared were "wholly inadequate and inappropriate". They were consequently shut down just one year into the Department of Health programme, after failing inspection. The full growth hormone programme ended in 1985 following the death of my former constituent, Alison Lay, from CJD, and similar deaths in the United States.
When the families concerned took their case to trial, the High Court ruled in July 1996 that the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health were negligent in not acting on the scientists' concerns, which probably would have resulted in the suspension of the treatment from July 1977. The judge, Mr. Justice Morland, stated that, if consultants had been properly alerted, new patients would not have been started on the programme. However, he went on to say that those who were already receiving treatment would legitimately have been continued on the

programme. The ruling meant that only families of patients who started treatment after July 1977 would be entitled to compensation. As a result, several families were not entitled to compensation and were devastated.
My constituent, Alison Lay, began her treatment in 1972 and her family have had to endure prolonged distress as a consequence of the ruling. Their trauma has been worsened by the refusal of Mr. Justice Morland to go beyond his original ruling.
This afternoon, I would like to put to the Minister a number of compelling reasons for reviewing the matter and compensating the five families.
The fundamental argument is simple. It points to a lack of consistency in the CJD litigation and the unfairness of the matter. It cannot be right that some people who died of CJD from contaminated growth hormone have been treated differently from the rest of the group. Although I understand and do not dispute Mr. Justice Morland's decision to institute a cut-off date, the fact that five families remain unentitled to compensation seems to be unjust and unfair.
It is also clear that, because only five cases are outstanding, there will not be any further claims of this precise nature and that, by changing their stance, the Government would not be opening the floodgates to many appeals.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is referring to human growth hormone, yet he is talking about CJD being linked to cattle and sheep. Is he talking about CJD in general or about people who had been given human growth hormone which is extracted from human pineal glands?

Mr. Oaten: I apologise if I have not made it clear that I am referring to CJD caused by the use of human growth hormones in treating other humans.
In view of the limited number of outstanding cases, the Government should be persuaded on compassionate grounds that some form of compensation should be awarded at limited cost to the Department of Health.
There is an additional issue that makes a compelling case for compensation to the five families. In June this year, six individuals won compensation of between £3,500 and £300,000 due to having suffered from psychiatric illness because of "rational fears" of contracting CJD. One wonders why the principle of extended compassion cannot be stretched just a little further to encompass the five cases that I have outlined.
Let me remind the Government of their stance on the issue in opposition, when they pressed strongly for compensation for CJD victims. For example, the then shadow Health Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, stated:
Ministers should establish an inquiry in the UK as a matter of urgency and examine ways in which a compensation scheme might be set up.
There is certainly no doubt about the Government's recent commitment to try to settle many outstanding compensation issues.
Perhaps the Government should follow the examples of Australia and France, where all CJD claimants have been compensated without having to establish liability. Is there not a similarity between the case of the haemophiliac


victims who became infected with HIV through contaminated factor 8 blood products? In that case, the Department established a no-fault compensation scheme. Is that not a practical example of how the remaining five CJD cases should be handled?
It may be that the Minister will take the same view as the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who stated last year in an oral reply that no further compensation should be given over and above Mr. Justice Morland's ruling because
it must be the first and overriding responsibility of the Department of Health to concentrate on preventing ill health and curing it when it occurs, not on compensating those who have contracted that terrible problem."—[Official Report, 18 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 730.]
Although I do not dispute the main responsibility of the Department of Health, there is a moral case for compensating the five families. I ask the Minister to remember the human suffering and injustice that have taken place and to try to resolve the issue speedily by compensating the five families. The numbers are small, and the cost to the Department of Health is not significant. Is it not time to end their distress? As my constituent, Mavis Lay, stated:
we have had enough torment over the last 14 years.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for raising the issue and to Alison Lay's parents, who have been tireless campaigners since her death.
Let me recap the history of the tragedy. The human growth hormone treatment programme ran from 1959 to 1985 and just under 2,000 children were treated in the United Kingdom during that period. It is a real tragedy that, as a result of the programme, there have been 27 deaths in the United Kingdom from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which, as we all now know, is a dreadful disease with awful consequences. The use of human growth hormone ended in 1985 when the link with CJD was established.
Children with growth deficiency may suffer permanent short stature, disability or even, in some cases, death. Most children are diagnosed as having a growth deficiency by a paediatrician in a specialist child growth clinic. The growth hormone that has been used since 1985 is manufactured genetically and is regarded as safe.
As we now know, CJD was transmitted through the human growth hormone that was used in the human growth hormone treatment programme. The administration of that programme by the Department of Health and Social Security, as it was then, was the subject of a comprehensive and open hearing in the High Court before Mr. Justice Morland, as the hon. Member for Winchester said.
The main court hearing ran from April 1996 to July 1996. During the hearing, the judge conducted a thorough examination of a great deal of documentary evidence on the conduct of the programme, and heard evidence from witnesses, including some of the most eminent experts in the field.
The Department co-operated as far as possible in the full production of all the documents and witnesses that could help the court to understand and unravel the

circumstances surrounding the administration of the treatment—everything that was relevant and could be traced was produced.
Mr. Justice Morland found that the Department had been negligent in the administration of some aspects of the programme, and patients whose treatment commenced after 1 July 1977 and who had been treated with growth hormone prepared according to the Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi method were successful in their action. He ruled that, on that date, action should have been taken to withdraw the HGH treatment or clinicians should have been warned that CJD could be transmitted. The date was set as the benchmark for compensation. The Department of Health, but not the Medical Research Council, was ruled to have been negligent.
Representatives of a number of patients who had died of CJD and whose treatment had straddled 1 July 1977 appealed against the finding—their appeal was heard in November 1997. The Court of Appeal referred the case back to Mr. Justice Morland to clarify some aspects of his original finding.
A further hearing took place during April this year. Mr. Justice Morland reviewed his earlier judgment and upheld the appeal of those patients who were treated with Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi hormone and who had received at least half their treatment with that preparation after 1 July 1977. Fourteen patients are involved, and we are working with the legal representatives of their estates to finalise any compensation that is payable.
The Department has accepted all those findings in full. We have sought at all times to co-operate fully with the courts and to comply as quickly as possible with their judgments. I have also accepted that any patient whose treatment with human growth hormone meets the criteria set by the court and who contracts CJD will receive compensation in terms similar to those reached for the plaintiffs who took part in the court action. Sadly, we have already had to pay interim compensation to four patients in that situation, and we will continue to make payments in any further cases that may arise.
I am also aware of the very real worries of all those treated with human growth hormone who are well at present but could contract CJD. I am sorry that their lives should be blighted by the knowledge that they risk contracting the disease. We all wish that they were not in that position—obviously, we all hope that the worst will never happen.
Some of the human growth hormone patients took legal action against the Department, claiming damages for the psychological harm and distress that they had suffered. I have met a number of those patients and those associated with their cases.
The case was heard, again by Mr. Justice Morland, during April and May 1998—the judgment was given in June 1998. As a result of the earlier negligence finding against the Department, the judge found that human growth hormone patients would be entitled to compensation if their treatment was completed after 1 July 1977, they received Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi hormone and they were suffering from a recognised psychiatric illness as a result of knowing that they were at risk of CJD. Again, we have accepted that finding and have agreed and paid compensation in 29 cases. A number of further claims are being investigated.
I know that many hon. Members have been concerned about the implications of that judgment, but we must recognise that all medical treatments, particularly new treatments, carry some risk. We intend to minimise that risk. Earlier this year, we announced proposals on some of the ways in which we will review our procedures and practices and issue guidance on the safest, most effective and most appropriate management of clinical practice.
Under those proposals, which were announced in July 1998 in the document "A First Class Service", the new national institute for clinical excellence will draw on expertise developed across a wide range of national and regional bodies to produce guidance and ensure that treatments are provided on the basis of safety, quality and efficacy.
I am aware of the calls for a general no-fault compensation scheme. I understand the motivation for those calls—many of which are from those who, as a result of the courts' decisions, will not receive compensation—and have given the question much thought.
The Government's policy—like that of the previous Government—is that compensation will be paid only when negligence has been proved. We believe that paying compensation on a no-fault basis would be enormously complicated, would not necessarily solve the problems that are being encountered, would be expensive and would have ramifications beyond the health service.
We believe that compensation should be paid only when a duty of care is owed, when a negligent act has been committed and when harm has been caused by that negligence. It is clearly better for the national health service that money is spent on direct patient care, rather than on the inordinate costs incurred in fighting compensation claims. Hon. Members will want to know that we are continuing to fund the counselling service for patients who were treated with human growth hormone and their families.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on his contribution, in which he made some very serious points. However, the CJD argument has moved on. We are talking about compensation for the use of growth hormone, but what if blood products and medical instruments are found to carry similar risks? The Minister has a duty of care, so will she give a pledge to compensate those who may suffer from her negligence, and that of the Department, in not making clear today the risks of CJD infection from such sources?

Ms Jowell: The Government are absolutely committed to publishing information and evidence on the risks from

CJD and on other public health hazards. We will seek the best scientific evidence, which we will publish and act on. Our framework for determining compensation remains that, where negligence is proved by the courts, compensation will be paid.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Many hon. Members have constituents who are in this distressing situation. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Government—by relying today on a legalistic argument for what is a limited claim for a tiny number of people—will appear to people outside to be taking a heartless attitude?

Ms Jowell: I very much hope that the Department's approach—which extends beyond this specific issue, and is a matter of general principle—will be seen as fair, not heartless. In everything that we have done in representing the Department's position and recognising the heartbreak suffered by the families, we have sought to establish a balance between what is fair and reasonable and not exposing the Department or the national health service to completely unfettered claims which have not been founded on clear evidence of negligence. We believe that the establishment of negligence in the courts is the fairest way of determining compensation. Once the judgment has been made, we have proceeded as quickly as possible to ensure that compensation is, in practice, paid to the families concerned.
I wish to remind the hon. Member for Winchester of the continuing support available to families provided by a unit under the leadership of Professor Michael Preece which is located at the Institute of Child Health in London. It was established in 1992 and does valuable work in supporting patients who have CJD, as well as those who are treated with the growth hormone but who are well at present. The unit is available to provide advice for clinicians and other health or social services staff who may have contact with human growth hormone patients, as well as to mobilise local health and social services to help human growth hormone patients, especially if CJD is suspected.
I fully understand the real concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Winchester. I am as anxious as the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to see what lessons can be learned from the tragic circumstances surrounding this treatment programme, to bring the matter to a swift and just conclusion and to ensure that we increase the chances of such mistakes and such dreadful tragedies never happening again.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Agriculture Council

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I would like to take the point of order after the statement. I have had some indication of what the point of order may be, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must take the statement first.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the European Union Agriculture Council held on 23 and 24 November, at which I represented the United Kingdom. My noble Friend Lord Sewel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, was also present.
The Council voted on a proposal by the Commission for the lifting of the worldwide ban on the export of British beef in respect of meat from animals born after 1 August 1996: 10 member states voted in favour of the measure; only one, Germany—for understandable domestic reasons—voted against; and Spain, France, Austria and Luxembourg abstained.
The vote represented a substantial move towards the Commission proposal by five member states from the earlier vote in the Standing Veterinary Committee. Most importantly, the procedures under which the vote was taken in Council enable the Commission formally to adopt the decision.
I can now announce to the House that, within the past three hours, the Commission has adopted the proposal permitting the export from the United Kingdom of boneless beef and beef products from animals slaughtered between six and 30 months of age and born after 1 August 1996. That is the date on which the Commission has verified that all contaminated feed was removed from the feed chain. There are further conditions aimed at preventing the offspring of BSE cases from entering the export scheme; a requirement for the slaughter of offspring of BSE cases; and strict rules on slaughtering and processing.
The Government will shortly issue a consultation paper on our proposals for implementing those rules. I shall lay before Parliament secondary legislation to make compulsory the offspring cull, which has been operating since July on a voluntary basis. The legislation will provide compensation at the market rate to owners of animals slaughtered.
I am sure that the House will welcome this excellent outcome. It has been achieved against a background of scepticism about the seriousness with which we have tackled BSE. We have overcome the misconceptions, and had our case judged objectively on its scientific merits and supported by independent Commission inspections, taking as our overriding principle the absolute need to safeguard public health.
Every Agriculture Minister who spoke in the Council, including those who did not vote in favour, had very positive things to say about the commitment shown by the new United Kingdom Government to tackling the problems presented by BSE. The outcome is also an

affirmation of the value of the Government's close co-operation and dialogue with our partners in Europe and with the European Commission.
The lifting of the ban comes hard on the heels of the support measures for agriculture that I announced to the House on 16 November. Both demonstrate the Government's commitment to securing a viable long-term future for the sector.
The Council also held a discussion of the Commission's proposals for common agricultural policy reform in the context of the Agenda 2000 measures. The proposals are essential for the future stability of European agriculture, and in order to facilitate a successful enlargement of the Union to the east. The Council agreed a report to the Vienna European Council next month identifying the main outstanding issues, and expressing its determination to reach conclusions on the package as a whole by next March.
It is an important Government objective to secure an ambitious reform of the CAP that serves the national interest, and, on behalf of the Government, I warmly welcomed the commitment by the Council to take early decisions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made similar points in the discussion at ECOFIN on 23 November on the future financing of the European Union.
It was a very important Council meeting for the United Kingdom. We have achieved a major objective of our policy towards Europe in the lifting of the beef export ban. Although it will take time for the British beef industry to win back markets that have been lost to it in the past two and a half years, I believe that we have created the conditions in which it can now plan for the future, confident that the industry has been modernised and is operating to the highest possible standards. Our immediate task is to work with the industry to ensure that the scheme that we have successfully negotiated in Europe works effectively to help to regain recognition for the quality of British beef on world markets.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome unreservedly the partial lifting of the beef export ban, and I warmly congratulate the Minister on his achievement. It is a tribute to his personal skills that he has secured an agreement that eluded his less diplomatic predecessor.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, and without detracting from his negotiating success, will the Minister acknowledge that the measures needed to satisfy the European Commission were in place before the general election? Is he also aware that there will be disappointment that the lifting of the ban is only partial, and that beef on the bone will still not be eligible for export? Does the Minister agree that many customers want carcase beef, and, because they will not be able to buy it from Britain, a significant part of the market will still be closed to us?
I turn to the conditions attached to the decision. Are there still animals in the cohort cull which need to be traced? Could he expand on the strict rules he mentioned which will be required for slaughtering and processing? For example, will the abattoirs from which beef for export will be taken have to be dedicated solely to exports? How quickly does he expect the European officials to carry out the necessary inspections in this country? What support will the Government give to the promotion of British beef


exports, especially in view of the help that was given to Northern Ireland and the need for mainland British beef producers to receive some assistance? What steps will the Government take to ensure that beef is back on more school menus? How soon will British service men abroad be able to enjoy British beef?
Does the Minister agree that recovering our export markets requires the co-operation of all European countries? Was he concerned by the report in The Guardian today of a possible German threat to boycott British beef? The Government are keen to have dialogues with their European partners, and the Minister met a German Minister only last week. Was that possible ban discussed at that meeting? If Germany is able to ban the sale of British beef, why does not the Minister immediately halt the sale of imported pigmeat in Britain produced under conditions that we do not permit?
In view of the Council's decision, is the lifting of the Government's home-made ban on beef on the bone in Britain now more or less likely? Does not every day that that ban remains further undermine confidence in British beef? Did the Minister use the two-day Council meeting to raise our growing concern about the export to Britain of meat products produced under conditions illegal in this country? In view of the confusion caused by conflicting statements from the Minister and the British Retail Consortium, and by the Government's failure to bring forward promised legislation on the food standards agency, is not the halting of such illegal imports, which include poultry from the far east, all the more urgent?
Did the Council discuss the review of the labelling directive? What steps are the Government taking to end the practice of selling food labelled with a Union Jack that contains food grown outside Britain and merely processed here? Will the Minister press his fellow Ministers for more honesty in labelling?
The Minister referred to Agenda 2000 in general terms. What progress has been made on specific issues since the March Council? For example, can he give the House the Government's view on labour unit modulation? Does he still support Lord Donoughue in the call for a 30 per cent. cut in milk support prices? What is the Government's view on proposals for national envelopes? I ask these questions in an entirely constructive spirit. The Minister deserves credit for his achievement, but the bottom line is how soon significant beef exports will resume. When will the farmgate price of British beef start to rise, and when will one of Britain's most famous and desirable products resume its rightful place at the top of menus around the world?

Mr. Brown: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's ungrudging and unqualified endorsement of my statement. He had some subsidiary questions, some of which run a little wide of the original statement. He asked about farmgate prices in the beef sector. I am certain that, when the market returns to normal, which includes recovering a substantial proportion of the export markets that we used to have, we will see an impact on the domestic industry as well.
I am not in a position to give the House a forecast today. I can say that it is my objective to have the date-based export scheme up and running and past its

Commission inspection by next spring, so that we will be able to make a start on exporting, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, deboned beef products worldwide. We are not talking just about trade with the European Union: it is a worldwide ban.
On national envelopes and the British proposal, along with the Italians, the Danes and the Swedes, for a more radical review of milk quotas, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, although those things were discussed by Ministers on the Monday night, there are no conclusions yet. I can tell the House that Ministers have taken a hard look at the estimate of the costs of the different reform proposals that have been put forward by national delegations and by the Commission.
The hon. Gentleman asked about my meeting with the British Retail Consortium to try to get clear labelling so that consumers can make a choice. I have already told the House that the agreement made was for fresh meats, processed meats and own-label meats that are directly under the control of the supermarkets concerned. I cannot ask the supermarkets for a commitment on processed meats that are supplied to them by other suppliers in turn—[Interruption.] I thought that the Conservative party used to believe in free trade. There are those of us who believe in free trade and consumer choice, and I believe that consumers should be able to choose.

Mr. Yeo: What about illegal products?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is shouting about illegal products. If products are illegal, I and the rest of the Government stand ready to take action. I invite the hon. Gentleman to send me the specific evidence that he undoubtedly has—he would not have made the comments otherwise—about food products coming into this country without meeting the standards that Parliament requires; I will then have it looked at by the competent officials, and stand ready to respond to any serious detailed allegation that he can make.
I must tell all hon. Members that is not enough to make generalised charges—we can all do that. Just as we object to consumers in other countries saying that they are not sure that British beef is safe to eat—they are wrong, because British beef is among the safest in the world—surely it is not right for us to say that other nation states cannot produce food products to the standards that we insist on here, because they clearly can.
The hon. Gentleman asked about beef on the bone. I have told the House before that, when the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee reports to me that it is appropriate to lift the domestic ban on beef on the bone, I will do so. I will do so on the basis of scientific advice, not on the basis of political will, which is what the hon. Gentleman is advising me to do. At the Conservative party conference, he said that he would lift the ban. There would be no consideration of whether it would be right to do so: he would just lift it anyway. I cannot do that. It would not be responsible for me to do that. The scientific advice comes first. I will consider it, and, when it is proper for me to do so, I will lift the ban.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the importation of pigmeat, and invited me to ban it. If he has specific evidence that pig products that are coming into this country do not meet the proper food safety standards, I will consider that, and make sure that the appropriate authorities look at it. He must come forward with specific evidence, not generalised assertions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about consumers in Germany. I hope that consumers there, throughout western Europe and worldwide will understand that we have made an enormous effort, and spent an enormous sum—more than £4 billion will have been spent on the BSE crisis by the end—to ensure that our beef products are among the safest in the world. I fully accept that consumer perceptions may be based on the conditions of 10 years ago, not the conditions now. We must explain ourselves, and I stand ready alongside the Meat and Livestock Commission to explain what the Government have done to ensure that British beef is safe, and to enable us to recover our export markets. The effort includes serving British beef to service men overseas, and ensuring that education authorities and others in the United Kingdom who purchase meat products in bulk have confidence in British beef.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Commission inspections. The date-based export scheme process will have to be inspected by the Commission, and I am confident that we can get that scheme up and running, and get it through its inspection. The Commission is ready to make the inspection when we get the scheme up and running. The hon. Gentleman asked about slaughterhouse rules. The scheme is slaughterhouse-based, not farm-based. The rules require slaughterhouses to be dedicated to the date-based export scheme, but they may also handle other animals, such as pigs and sheep. They cannot handle non-date-based export scheme cattle.
The hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the cull. Some progress has been made with a voluntary cull, but there is more to do, and that is why the Government will make the cull compulsory. I shall introduce regulations soon, and compensation will be paid to farmers at market value.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that the arrangements for lifting the ban were first put in place by the previous Government. It is true that the agreement in principle was made at Florence, but that was not the difficult bit. The difficult bit was implementing the agreement, both credibly and in a way that would persuade our partners in the European Union that we had implemented it credibly. The agreement was based on co-operative working, and on our acceptance that we had to be able to explain the scheme, to prove it and to justify it on the basis of science and on its technical implementation.
I would not have been able to achieve agreement without the hard work, energy and skill of my predecessor, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Agriculture Ministers from other nation states always ask after my right hon. Friend, mentioning the skilful way in which he managed the British presidency. The impact that my right hon. Friend made on the Agriculture Council during our six-month presidency convinced our EU partners that we were a new Government with a new approach, with whom they could deal. That was not the case with the previous Administration.

Mr. David Drew: I unreservedly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. It is a victory for effective diplomacy and quiet negotiation, unlike what happened under the previous Administration. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about his welcome decision to extend the cull to beasts affected by maternal

transmission of BSE, including cases in which cohorts are affected? Does he agree that we will be safe only if we move as quickly as possible towards implementing a food standards agency?

Mr. Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I am committed to the food standards agency, as are other members of the Government. I intend to discuss with territorial Ministers and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Chancellor how best to take the proposal forward, given that it has no slot in the legislative programme. That proposal is going to be taken forward. My hon. Friend is right to say that the cull is a necessary condition of the scheme. Of course, farmers will be compensated at market rates, but the proposal must be taken forward. The voluntary scheme has not brought in all the animals that I would have wanted, so we must make the cull compulsory.
I estimate that about 3,500 animals will have to be culled under the scheme, which is designed to deal with maternal transmission. It is so important that we not only get the date-based export scheme up and running, but that we do so in a way that will restore consumer confidence in our products, not merely in the markets that are used to dealing with the United Kingdom but among those countries that have been the most critical and sceptical. I look forward not only to a completely clear report from the Commission but to our being able to explain what we have done in countries such as Germany, where there is still uncertainty about British beef products.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Minister's negotiating skills. This has been one of the worst crises to affect agriculture this century, and we are pleased with the result that he has brought back from Brussels. The industry has warmly welcomed the proposal, and rightly so. It is a bit rich for the Conservative Opposition to carp about it. After all, they are equivocal about qualified majority voting and the powers of the Commission that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today. If the Opposition's policy were in place, the attitude of the Germans, who wanted to maintain the ban, would have ensured that it stayed in place. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.
Perhaps the Minister will also accept that we are pleased that full market values will be given for animals that have to be sold under the offspring cull, which will greatly help the farming community.
The development of the market is extremely important. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some idea what the MLC will be doing to promote British beef on the continent, and why the French and the Spanish, in particular, did not vote in favour of lifting the ban, but abstained. What were their reasons for doing so, and will that affect our ability to market in France and Spain?
Finally, the Agriculture Council discussed many other agricultural matters, and I am sure that reference was made to the package to supply food to Russia this winter to relieve starvation. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a special scheme to send British


sheepmeat to Russia this winter to alleviate problems in the sheep market here and assist the Russians by preventing starvation?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for today's announcement, and for the constructive part that the parliamentary Liberal Democrats have played in these matters.
On food aid and sheepmeat, we cannot use our food surpluses crudely to provide stocks to Russia. Humanitarian aid schemes to Russia are being put in place, which involve credit lines and the provision of some food aid. They are being co-ordinated on our behalf by the European Union, and the United States has put in place a separate range of measures.
However, in these matters we must be conscious of our obligations to the World Trade Organisation. It would not be fair to take other people's market opportunities by dumping our surpluses. Nevertheless, we should stand by Russia in what is going to be a difficult winter, and show solidarity with the Russian people, which means ensuring that any food aid sent—I am certain that some will be—gets to the people who need it. There are clear concerns about the distribution network there.
On the opposition from France and Spain, at the Standing Veterinary Committee, France, Spain, Italy, Holland and Germany voted against the Commission's proposal. I had bilateral meetings with each of those member states, and was able to justify the Commission's proposal, which is, of course, the United Kingdom proposal, on the basis of the science and the implementation of the scheme. I was able to ensure a welcome shift towards the Commission from all those national delegations. I would have preferred a positive vote for the Commission proposal, but the best that I could get was the abstention, which enables the proposal to be brought into effect by the Commission.
The overriding reason why countries are not able to give whole-hearted support to the scheme is the enormous damage that BSE has done to the beef market across western Europe. It is not only a United Kingdom problem; the market has fallen further in Germany than it has in this country, because of consumer fears about BSE. This is naturally a serious matter for our partners, and when we are trying to achieve agreement on matters of this kind, it is a good idea to step back and try to see the problem from their point of view, instead of asserting our own, and demanding that people always agree with us.
The measured, science-based approach that the British Government have adopted is the right approach. It has commanded respect from national delegations, even those that have not felt able to lift the ban yet. Nobody—not a single nation state—said that it should not be lifted; the issue was timing, and clearly the political leaders will have been worried about consumer opinion in their own countries. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to worry about—the protection of the public must come first in these matters.
As for explaining ourselves in difficult markets, the Government stand ready to work with the Meat and Livestock Commission—and, indeed, the industry—

to make sure that we explain ourselves and rebuild our markets. I certainly stand ready to do what the Government properly can to help.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend's announcement is a further example of the Labour Government delivering on their pledges—we have done it; the Conservatives destroyed the market.
I take my right hon. Friend back to the Meat and Livestock Commission, and what part it can play in Europe. Will we support it with increased resources? Will it sponsor an advertising campaign throughout the European Union to develop the markets for beef, and our re-entry into those markets? Will there be any opportunity for British producers to promote beef—perhaps through trade fairs—and perhaps even to foster some sort of beef price war in Europe so that we can reclaim markets, taking into account the experience of the Northern Irish in recent months, which has not been too good?

Mr. Brown: I welcome what my hon. Friend says, and thank him for his kind remarks.
On exports from Northern Ireland, when I visited Bologna last week, Paolo de Castro, my Italian ministerial counterpart, served me Northern Ireland beef and Italian mushrooms for lunch. It was not only delicious, but a great compliment, and it shows how far things have moved. The best thing that we can do is explain how Britain has got through the BSE crisis, explain what measures we have put in place to ensure that exported British beef is truly among the safest in the world—that goes for Northern Ireland beef from the herd scheme that is in place in Northern Ireland as well—and restore consumer confidence in British beef as a first-class product.
The MLC has a number of ideas, and I stand ready to explore all these matters with it, but I do not want to make a further announcement this afternoon.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I congratulate the Minister, without equivocation, on his achievement in obtaining a lifting of the export ban on British beef? There is no doubt that his personal negotiating skills have played a part, and I congratulate him on that.
Will the Minister answer two questions? First, when does he think that SEAC will advise him to allow the sale of beef on the bone in the United Kingdom? That would be another fillip and encouragement to the farming industry. Secondly, will he ensure that the veterinary and hygiene costs that are to be imposed on our abattoirs are no greater than those imposed on abattoirs in countries elsewhere in the European Union? The abattoir industry in this country is greatly concerned that the costs that it is having to meet will put some abattoirs out of business. Those costs are unfair, and not the same as those being imposed in other EU countries.

Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He has not always spoken warmly about the European Union and its institutions, so his remarks today are all the more welcome. I promise that I will take a hard look at the costs of the meat hygiene service and veterinary surgeons in abattoirs, and see what can be done. Public safety must come first, however, so I am not


certain that I shall be able to do everything that he wants. I take the point that he made about comparable costs in other member states. He asked about advice from SEAC. I anticipate a report from it soon.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he, his departmental colleagues and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), deserve the thanks of the whole House for getting us to this point?
Although I accept that, if we are to meet the stringent conditions for exporting British beef and rebuilding our export markets, the main challenge lies with the meat industry, including abattoirs, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have an important part to play, not least because of the emphasis on traceability in relation to the cull and the criteria for exporting beef? Is he willing to take a personal interest in the new cattle traceability scheme, and do his level best to make the centre at Workington a model not just for Europe but for the rest of the world in terms of speed, reliability and overall efficiency?

Mr. Brown: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. He, too, has played a part in those matters. What he says about traceability is absolutely right. Traceability is here to stay. I have visited the cattle movement service headquarters at Workington—indeed, I opened it. I found the young staff enthusiastic about what they were doing, and doing a good job well. On support for the meat industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission, I shall see what I can do to help.

Mr. Michael Jack: I hope that the Minister and the House will join me in thanking the Minister's officials, who deserve praise for their contribution to the lifting of the ban. Without their work behind the scenes, none of the progress in which we can rejoice today could have been made.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked the Minister whether resources would be made available from within his existing budget to help with the marketing effort. Will he produce a parallel package—in pro rata terms, worth some £11 million—to that provided by the Northern Ireland Office to help it to rebuild its markets in Europe?

Mr. Brown: I must operate within the budgetary constraints of the comprehensive spending review, but I shall see what I can do. It is right that the Government explain to those who used to be our trading partners in beef—we hope that they will be our trading partners again—exactly what we have done to ensure that the public, overseas and at home, are protected from BSE and new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The only way that we can rebuild our markets is through proper explanation.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about my officials. In my short time at the Department, I have been well served by senior officials, who have put in very long hours, not only to join me in the range of bilateral discussions that I have had to have with other countries, but to prepare for the meetings and

discuss with other officials, so that the Ministers I meet are properly advised. They have worked extremely hard, and deserve the House's gratitude.

Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his successful and doughty efforts. He speaks for the whole country. How does he assess the impact of the lifting of the ban on Wales, especially on my constituency, where farmers have had a nightmarish time, and have edged towards bankruptcy? How does he assess the impact of CAP reform on dairy farming?

Mr. Brown: The British, Italian, Danish and Swedish proposals for reform of the dairy sector are extensive, and involve a phasing out of quota by 2006. They have not been agreed by others on the Council of Ministers, and the Commission and other member states have made alternative proposals. It is too early to give my hon. Friend a definitive answer, but we want radical reform.
The announcement was widely welcomed by farm leaders from Welsh farming unions. Such is the importance of the announcement that they were in Brussels to hear at first hand how matters had transpired at the Council of Ministers. I hope that today's announcement, together with the one I made last week on support, particularly through the hill livestock compensatory allowances, will have a positive impact on agriculture in Wales.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the Minister, as I am sure the whole House does. First, has he taken any action with America and Canada to ensure that their import ban is lifted? No one can now argue that British beef is not as safe as beef from anywhere else in the world. Secondly, is it not a hurdle to the export of animals that it has to be proved that the dam was alive six months before the animal to be exported goes into the scheme? Is it correct that a statement witnessed by the farmer will not be adequate? Will the Ministry of Agriculture establish a special unit for this purpose? If so, will he ensure that farmers, who have suffered profit losses of between 45 and 50 per cent. over these years, will not have another cost imposed on them, and that the cost will be borne by MAFF?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman makes two important points. We shall have to set up a unit in MAFF to deal with that technical issue. The dam must be alive six months before the animal goes into the scheme. As certification from the farmer will not be enough, in itself, for the workings of the scheme, the only way we can verify that is to establish a unit within the Department.
I am examining what the Government can properly do about costs. I am, in principle, considering making a contribution from the funds of my Department, at least to the start-up costs of the scheme, although some costs will have to be borne by the industry. No final decision has been reached, but the Government will have to provide some support to get the scheme up and running.
The worldwide ban was imposed on the United Kingdom by the European Union, and it operated worldwide. We have got that lifted, so it is now possible for us to commence discussions with other countries who


were previously our trading partners in beef products, such as America and Canada, to get their bilateral bans lifted. I shall certainly attempt that.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, this is great news for farmers in the north-west, which is the second most affected region. What can we do to promote the quality beef that is produced in England? Wales can sell its beef on the back of the success of its Welsh lamb, which is delivered all around the world. That is a prime example of the good branding of a quality product. I believe that we shall not have the same support in England. What new initiatives will the Minister introduce to support English farmers? Will he give them the same support as is given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. I shall be working with the Meat Livestock Commission to ensure that there is proper marketing support behind the new export drive. It is also important for us, as public representatives, to play our part. This issue should not become unreasonably politicised, but we should explain what our country has done to ensure that our beef is entirely safe. That is the key message we should be sending out, and it has the great merit of being completely true. Beef is safe.

Mr. William Thompson: First, I thank the Minister for his statement, and I congratulate him on the efforts that he has made since he took office. A great handicap to the export of beef is the fact that beef on the bone cannot be exported. I know that the Minister anticipates that that ban will be lifted in the United Kingdom—in the near future, I hope. Will the same apply, in the end, to the export of beef to Europe, or will there have to be another month of tortuous negotiation with the European Commission?

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that the blunt answer to the last question is yes. The date-based export scheme relates to deboned beef: it therefore excludes live animals and whole carcases, and, indeed, any other beef on the bone.
As the incidence of BSE in this country lessens, we shall want to deal with the issue, but the Government's view is the same as that of the last Government when they negotiated the agreements in Florence. We think that we should make a start, and this is a good start, which will give us a chance not only to recover markets, but to explain our current arrangements to ensure that beef products from Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are completely safe.

Mr. Andy King: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the efforts that he has made since taking up his present post. I know that farmers in my constituency have great confidence in him, because they cancelled an arrangement that they had made to come here, yet again, to lobby Warwickshire Members. Owing to my right hon. Friend's efforts, they decided that such action was unnecessary at this time. That denotes an enormous increase in confidence in him, and in the present Government.
My right hon. Friend has plainly met one major challenge, but the greatest challenge of all will be reform of the common agricultural policy. What part are the Government taking in that?

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
Since becoming Minister of Agriculture, I have set out to meet not just farm representatives, but individual farmers. The priorities in my work load have been informed by what I have been told by farmers, as well as their representatives.
I assure my hon. Friend that the British Government are in the vanguard of nation states that seek radical reform of the CAP, so that it can meet the challenges of an increasingly liberalised world market that is moving remorselessly towards us, whether we reform or not. The Government believe that we should be ahead of the game, rather than running behind it.

Mr. Tim Collins: I congratulate the Minister on bringing a good day to British farming. That has been rare in recent years. Does he accept, however, that the crisis is not yet over, and that a difficult winter lies ahead for many farmers in my constituency and elsewhere? Will he consider working with representatives of the British banking industry, and trying to persuade them that they should continue to support farmers in the coming months, so that, when better days come, there are still farmers in business to enjoy them?

Mr. Brown: Yes. A huge effort has been made, in terms of officials' as well as Ministers' time, to secure what I have announced today. Last week, I announced a package of measures specifically designed to deal with the current difficulties in the farming sector. The purpose of all that has been to ensure that the industry can experience better times—and those better times, we hope, are being negotiated within the CAP. CAP reform is crucial to the long-term stability and security of the domestic industry.
I hope to meet representatives of the sector that specialises in agricultural banking shortly.

Mr. Paul Marsden: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessor on the tremendous news that we have heard today, and on the excellent work that went into bringing it about. I pay tribute to other Shropshire Members, past and present, and to the MEP for Hereford and Shropshire—a constituency that includes Wyre Forest—who have undertaken some hard lobbying of my right hon. Friend.
What initial targets and estimates has my right hon. Friend for the reclaiming of the export market? In particular, may I ask what figures he has in mind in relation to the next 12 months?

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and acknowledge the tribute he pays to representatives from his area, who have all played a constructive part in the discussions.
I shall not be setting targets. It would be quite wrong for us to do anything other than acknowledge that it will be difficult to recapture markets that were lost to us.


A surplus of beef products in the EU makes it pretty difficult to do so. The important thing is that the legal barrier to us trying to do so has been lifted, and we can make a start. It will take time, and I am afraid that the early start might be slow, but we must get on with it.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): May I also congratulate the Minister on his success in securing a lifting of the ban throughout the European Union? I thank him for his visits to Wales during a difficult period for farmers, and for his work alongside ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Office. While he thinks about ways in which we can promote Welsh beef and beef from other countries of Britain, may I commend to him the success, for example, of branding Welsh lamb? When he considers ways in which he can sell the idea of reopening markets for Welsh beef, will he remind our colleagues in Europe that some of the best beef is finished on grass? That should be an enormous selling point. Will he confirm that any measures implemented in MAFF will be mirrored in the Welsh and Scottish Offices?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I can confirm that. My visits to Wales have enabled me to hear at first hand the views of farming leaders as well as individual farmers in Wales. The fact that the Government are listening and making policy that is informed by what farmers say has been widely welcomed—nowhere more so than in Wales. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware of substantial concerns about the safety of beef production and the incidence of BSE elsewhere in Europe and the world? What discussions are taking place in Europe to ensure that other Governments implement the same stringent controls as ours in order to prevent the spread of BSE?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The EU is considering Europewide measures on specified risk material and other precautionary regimes on BSE that would apply throughout Europe. The UK's contribution to those discussions is, of course, informed by our experience of these matters. I have offered to share our science and technical expertise with other member states, so that, if a crisis looms in their countries, they can get through it with knowledge of some of the things that we have had to learn the hard way.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Although I, too, welcome the Minister's statement, which reflects his personal efforts as well as those of his predecessors, will he use this opportunity to remind the House that this decision very much falls into the context of the progressive decline of the BSE epidemic in cattle? There is a strong probability that no more than 1 per cent. of total cases ever has yet to come to light.
In the wider context of Agenda 2000, will he consider with his European colleagues the implications of supply and demand in the European beef industry for land use, and contemplate constructive measures to encourage further extensification, and possibly the conversion of some grazing land to other uses?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He makes two important points. On discussions

on Agenda 2000 proposals, there is widespread recognition throughout the EU of a structural surplus in beef products with which we must deal. Within that broad recognition, there is further discussion on whether priority should be given to extensive or intensive systems. Clearly, different countries approach that depending on their domestic circumstances.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the reported number of BSE-affected cattle seems to be coming down in line with predictions, which rather confirms and underpins the Government's approach.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievement, which is very welcome. However, does he agree that, if the previous Government had taken positive action when BSE first raised its head to ensure the safety of food in the food chain, the whole crisis might well have been averted?

Mr. Brown: I do not want to say anything that might pre-empt the outcome of the BSE inquiry, the results of which will eventually come to me and my right hon. Friends. Nevertheless, it is stating the obvious to say that, in the early stages, the issue could have been handled better than it was. Specifically, it is right to say that our relationships with our European Union partners are crucially important. We must get ourselves into a position in which we are treated seriously and with respect by our partners and can negotiate with them, rather than merely shouting impotently at them.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The Minister will know that one of the United Kingdom's largest regular sales of finished cattle is held each week at Ludlow. His announcement of the lifting of the export ban will therefore be very welcome among the beef farmers of south Shropshire, which is one the country's premier beef-producing areas. However, he will be aware also that there is not much optimism among meat traders that our export trade will be quickly regained.
Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on his statement that that trade will be allowed only through dedicated abattoirs, whereas all hon. Members will know that every abattoir has to comply with EC standards for intra-Community trade? More to the point, will he give the House an absolute undertaking that there will be no further let or hindrance to those exports once they have passed the inspectorate at the dedicated abattoir?

Mr. Brown: The purpose of the agreement is to ensure that beef that has gone through the scheme—the date-based export scheme is a project-specific scheme—can get into the European market. The only let and hindrance that exports would then face are free market conditions—such as consumer choice and the terms of trade—that are faced by every product. As I said, I do not believe that we will immediately be exporting vast quantities of meat. We have a lot to do to rebuild markets that we once had, in an already over-supplied market. Clearly it will not be easy, but we must make a start. We must all work together, without overstating the matter, to achieve as much as we possibly can.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend remember, about two years ago, the previous


Government's policy of non-co-operation in Europe, which left us isolated and friendless in Europe? Does not last Monday's meeting and today's statement show that constructive engagement with Europe brings results? Furthermore, are not those results the best news that British farming has had for a long time—which is why, on Monday, champagne corks were popping on farms in my constituency?

Mr. Brown: Of course my hon. Friend is right. For the Conservative party, the beef war is over.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I know that my constituents will be delighted to welcome the decision that the Minister has brought back from the Council of Ministers, and that they have been waiting for this moment since the ban was imposed. However, may I pass on to him concerns that have been expressed to me about how we will re-establish a profitable beef industry when we have no market for older cows, we have no market for offal—processors were once paid £80 a tonne for trimmings, but now must pay £60 a tonne for them to be taken away—and we have the heavy costs of inspection and traceability?
What will the right hon. Gentleman do, first, to try to minimise those costs, and, secondly, to ensure that such costs as have to be borne are spread fairly across the industry—rather than to permit a situation in which supermarkets manage to protect their margins, while unsubsidised finishers are forced to carry an unsustainable loss?

Mr. Brown: The Government, of course, currently carry some of those costs. I fully accept that the BSE crisis has hit the domestic industry pretty severely. Specifically, the industry now has to carry costs that it did not have to carry before. The costs of inspecting abattoirs and of traceability are here to stay, but they are not here to stay uniquely in the United Kingdom. Traceability is now a requirement across the European Union. The way forward is to ensure that we can convince consumers of the safety of our meat products, and to ensure that we—Government and industry—work hard together in trying to get back into markets that we once had but have been out of for the past two and a half years. Those obstacles will have to be overcome—the Government cannot simply lift them out of the way.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend, especially on behalf of my constituency which is a significant beef producer. The announcement is the light at the end of the tunnel for which many of my farming constituents have been waiting.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that to the congratulations he has received from both sides of the House should be added an apology from the Opposition, bearing in mind the evidence given by the former Health Minister, Edwina Currie, to the BSE inquiry on Monday? She said:
More people became ill, more people became infected and more people died because of inadequate actions by Government Ministers over a long period of time.

That should warrant at least a small apology from the Opposition.
My right hon. Friend's statement referred to reform of the common agricultural policy. What indication has he received from our European partners that, in the Agenda 2000 negotiations, we can move towards decoupling support from production? We may well get over this crisis, but others will loom if we do not decouple support from production.

Mr. Brown: The point about decoupling support from production—support for rural Britain—is absolutely at the heart of the current discussions on reshaping the CAP. There is a willingness among Ministers to deal with the problems of structural surplus, the challenges of world market prices and the increasing liberalisation that are marching towards us. Getting our partners to go further is a Government negotiating objective, but it is too early to say whether we will achieve all of it.
I must not pre-empt the BSE inquiry. I note that Mrs. Currie has treated it to her opinions, and I wait to see what the inquiry makes of them.

Mr. Robert Walter: I echo the compliments of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Minister for this further step in restoring traditional markets to the British livestock industry. However, the statement relates to beef exported on the bone from cattle over six months old. One of our most significant traditional markets was the calf market. Can the Minister say when the resumption of calf exports is likely? Will there be any support for the calf industry beyond the announcement he made last week, which will end in March 1999?

Mr. Brown: My announcement last week on extending the calf processing scheme at a reduced rate was designed to give some assistance to the industry in what are clearly restricted trading conditions. There are ethical problems as well as animal welfare problems with the handling of calves. I should like a domestic organic veal industry to develop, rather than looking to live exports, which are a very long way away.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, congratulate the Minister on the excellent news. The beef farmers of Herefordshire, including some of those he met a couple of weeks ago when he visited my constituency, will be delighted.
Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), the problem is not yet over. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Herefordshire beef—the finest beef in the world—populates the globe, largely through the export of cattle and semen for breeding. What is the position on those exports, and when will the bans be lifted?

Mr. Brown: I enjoyed my visit to the farms in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It gave me an opportunity to hear about the problems directly from the farmers. The export of some of the products that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is already permitted by the European Union. Today's announcement pushes forward that agenda.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I want to tell my right hon. Friend how impressed my


constituents, especially the farming community, are with his stewardship since his appointment. They have been writing to me to tell me that. Is he not encouraged by the fact that the national president of the National Farmers Union said this week that diplomacy rather than table thumping is the reason we have achieved this result?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The farming unions have been taken into my confidence as we have gone through the negotiations, and they have done what they can to help with their sister organisations in other member states. They welcome the Government's constructive engagements with our partners, from whom, after all, we expect to get the decision. I have had a strong welcome for the approach that the Government have adopted.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted that the Minister is here to make his announcement to the House, and I add my congratulations. I am pleased that, for an hour and a half on the flight back from Brussels yesterday, I resisted the urge to discuss the matter with him. I know that he is interested in the Vale of York, because he met one of my constituents, the president of the National Farmers Union, there recently.
What can the Minister do to satisfy producers and consumers of beef in this country that the high standards set in the European Union for beef production in this country are matched by foreign exporters? What can he do to put their minds at rest as to whether foreign exporters are meeting the same high standards that exporters in this country enjoy?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks—and, indeed, for her company on the flights

back from Brussels; we have twice been on the same flight. She asks whether other countries are maintaining the same high standards as we do, but I am afraid that, in the rest of Europe, that point is often put to me the other way around—it is our standards and our products that are questioned. What we should do—all of us; it is not a party political point—is set out to explain what our country has done and at what cost, and explain why we are now able to offer the greatest consumer safeguards anywhere in the world. British beef is among the safest in the world. That is a simple message, but we all need to get it over.

Mr. Owen Paterson: It would be churlish not to congratulate the Minister on his success so far, and I congratulate him on that partial success. However, this morning, I had a discussion with a major meat export business, and was told that, before the ban, it exported seven to eight truckloads of dressed meat to quality distributors and restaurants in Europe. It was made clear to me that 50 per cent. of that beef was on the bone, for high-quality roasts sold to the best restaurants. It is of absolutely paramount importance that the Minister lifts the beef on the bone ban in this country, and gets the export of beef on the bone allowed to the whole of Europe. Can he give us a clearer idea of a timetable on that?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises two separate propositions. On the second, the right thing to do is to get the date-based export scheme—which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is for deboned beef—up and running and gaining market share, because, as we gain market share, we also restore consumer confidence. On the question of the domestic beef on the bone ban, as soon as SEAC reports to me setting out the parameters, I shall consider what it says; if the scientific evidence means that I can come to the House and lift the ban, I shall do so.

Point of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following your previous ruling, may I ask what is the latest position in respect of Pinochet? As you probably know, the Lords have decided that Pinochet is not immune from justice, but can be extradited. That is a wonderful decision, about which Labour Members are delighted. Shall we have the opportunity to discuss the subject in the near future? As far as international law is concerned, it is good indeed that a notorious mass murderer and torturer can be brought to justice.

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Goldfield): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Following this afternoon's judgment in the House of Lords on the case of General Pinochet, I have pointed out before that this House is obviously in some difficulty on the issue. So far, there have been no Government statements whatsoever on the issue, in spite of the fact that outside the House it is a matter of open debate. There have now been two judgments, in the divisional court and the House of Lords. Surely it is now time that we had a statement from the Home Secretary. People in this country are greatly concerned about the issue, and about our relations with the democratically elected Government of Chile.
I realise that you, Madam Speaker, will not remotely have had time to consider the judgment of the House of Lords, but may I put one point to you? At the end of his judgment, Lord Nicholls said:
The sole question before your Lordships is whether, by reason of his status as a former head of state, Senator Pinochet is immune from the criminal processes of this country, of which extradition forms a part. Arguments about the effect on this country's diplomatic relations with Chile if extradition were allowed to proceed, or with Spain if refused, are not matters for the court. These are, par excellence, political matters for consideration by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretion under section 12 of the Extradition Act.
That seems to be the point, and in view of that judgment, would it not be right for us to be able to question the Home Secretary on the use of what everyone agrees is very wide discretion? Many people here and in Chile feel that the affair has continued for long enough, and that the way forward is for the Home Secretary to use his discretion and bring the proceedings to an end.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he wants to be helpful, but I am quite capable of giving a ruling. I have heard points of order from both sides, and I am well able to cope with them. As the House of Lords has decided that Senator Pinochet does not have immunity from prosecution, extradition proceedings against the senator are still pending.
I remind the House that our sub judice resolutions—to which I drew the House's attention previously and which can be found in the Standing Orders—require that there should be no comment on matters awaiting jurisdiction in the courts. The courts may have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain. The matter of the charges against him therefore remains sub judice.
Again, I reassure the House that, as soon as the issue ceases to be sub judice, I know that the Home Secretary will take the first opportunity to make a statement to the House, and it will be open to all hon. Members to question him and debate the issue. Until then, the sub judice rule remains.

Mr. David Willetts: On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your guidance on ministerial attendance at the debate on the Address? Is it not customary for Cabinet Ministers to reply to the debate? The Secretary of State for Education and Employment faxed me a letter this morning explaining that he would not be speaking in this evening's debate, despite the fact that it is on industry, education and employment, because he has to speak tomorrow at the annual conference of the Association of Colleges in Harrogate. The programme shows that he is speaking there at 12 noon, but I am speaking at 10.10 am and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is speaking at 9.50 am. If we can still debate here tonight, why cannot the Secretary of State?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have no authority in determining which Ministers handle debates in the House, but I have the feeling of the House and will address the point in general. The House wishes a Secretary of State to be on the Front Bench during a major debate appertaining to the departmental portfolio. As for my personal feelings on the matter, I understand that Secretaries of State have urgent business elsewhere, but unless there is a matter of utmost urgency elsewhere, I believe that the House always takes priority.

BILL PRESENTED

WATER INDUSTRY

Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Michael, Mr. Michael Meacher and Mr. Alan Meale, presented a Bill to make further provision in relation to England and Wales as to charges in respect of the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services and to make provision in relation to Scotland for the establishment and functions of a Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 1].

Orders of the Day — Debate on the Address

[SECOND DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 November],
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
Most Gracious Sovereign.
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Mr. Ashton.]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — Trade, Industry, Education and Employment

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): This Queen's Speech has one overriding theme—modernisation. We are modernising the country, its system of government, its public sector and the economy. We are modernising education, the health service, the welfare system, the relationship between Government and business, and the fight against crime. That is precisely the programme for which the British people voted. The change that they wanted is the change that they are getting from a changed Labour party.
Any attempt seriously to challenge or pick apart what the Government are doing was conspicuous by its absence from the Leader of the Opposition's speech yesterday, which, by the way, I thought was better than a sixth-form debating society speech—it was more an after-dinner speech.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, would agree with me about that. He fancies himself as the more substantial, cerebral, worldly and charismatic leader—the Newt Gingrich of the Conservative party. I can hear him up at the Dispatch Box—the Press Gallery full, the fanatical cry of the true believers behind him—as he tears into the Government's intellectual inconsistencies and ideological inexactitudes.
Alas, it was not to be. The man who made it to the Dispatch Box was not the pretender but the leader himself, of whom the right hon. Gentleman once said:
I've had more interesting conversations with a bathroom sponge.

Mr. John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman immediately withdraw that preposterous comment, which I never made? Will he accept that I thought that the Leader of the Opposition gave a superb speech yesterday, which tore the Government to shreds? The right hon. Gentleman should heed my right hon. Friend's message.

Mr. Mandelson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has thrown in the towel already. He should not allow himself to be goaded so easily. On hearing the result of the Conservative party leadership election, he said that the worst of all six candidates had been chosen.

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: A denial?

Mr. Redwood: That was another misstatement by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mandelson: What a way to speak of one's leader. We certainly would not get away with it in our party—the men in the dark would not stand for it.
What, after the rhetoric was finished, was left of the bathroom sponge? In my view, there was very little. The Conservatives cannot oppose the investment and reform in schools. They do not dare oppose the money for and change to the national health service. They would not


know where to start in presenting an alternative to welfare reform and, in the fight against crime, they are precisely nowhere.
That is not surprising from a party that, in 18 long years, talked a good game but travelled backwards. It has now decided to win back the political middle ground by lurching further to the right. In the process, it has offered no new ideas, no shred of analysis and no proposals to modernise Britain—nothing, zero, zilch. While the Government modernise, they sloganise.
The Government will stick to their guns. We will not be deflected—however many battalions of hereditary peers are thrown in our way—from our programme to strengthen democracy, to create opportunity and higher living standards and to bring about improvement for the many and not the few.
The Government's legislative programme for this Session is founded on the twin themes of modernisation and fairness. Labour's first Session in government for 18 years saw an unprecedented programme of legislation—47 Acts of Parliament in 18 months. My Department has been at the heart of that effort.
What a contrast with the previous Administration. In the two Sessions before the election in May last year, the Department of Trade and Industry took through just two programmed Bills—just two. In the Session that has just gone, we put five Acts on to the statute book.
The Competition Act 1998 will finally reform a competition regime that was widely regarded as out of date, toothless and badly in need of a rethink. We did that—the Tories promised to do so, but delivered nothing. Now, of course, the right hon. Member for Wokingham claims that he never supported that reform anyway. How comforting that must be to business—to know that all the time he was representing their interests as the Minister responsible for competition, he never actually believed in it.
The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is a key part of the Government's commitment to fairness and decent minimum standards. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 will encourage the efficient use of an increasingly scarce resource which will be vital to our drive to build a business environment that fosters innovation and encourages enterprise in the information age. The Fossil Fuel Levy Act 1998 is a clear commitment to the promotion of renewable energy sources. Last but not least, the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Act 1998 establishes the principle that small firms cannot and should not be bullied by larger competitors. Five Acts were initiated from my Department, Madam Speaker, compared to none at all from the Conservative Government in the Session before the election.
Our commitment to legislation which is based on modernisation and fairness will continue in the coming Session. First, we will aim to modernise employee relations so as to promote partnership at work and underpin a flexible and efficient labour market. What is clear to everyone bar the Conservative party is that workplaces where there is mutual respect and minimum standards of protection, safety and consultation, work better and more productively.
If businesses are to be competitive, to innovate and to anticipate their customers' needs, they need the wholehearted commitment of their employees. That commitment

will be given by people who feel that they are treated reasonably and fairly. That underpins our proposed legislation.
We will introduce a forward-looking Bill to modernise our framework of employment law. The Bill will honour all the commitments that we gave in the White Paper which we published earlier this year. It will address family-friendly employment practices, to reflect the fact that the labour market is changing and needs more, not less, flexibility to enable men and women to cope with home and work; it will provide new rights for individuals at work, including greater protection against unfair dismissal; and establish a new statutory procedure for the recognition of trade unions.
We have listened carefully to all the responses to the White Paper, and they have helped us to develop and to refine the detail; to fill in the gaps; to ensure that the proposals will work well and strike a fair balance; and, yes, to give reassurance, where justified, to employers who are understandably concerned about the impact of the proposed legislation on their businesses.
Let me make this further point, too. Our measures are well judged for our country's needs. Others in Europe may have their own views on what is appropriate for their domestic needs. In this matter of collective rights and workplace relations, where there are wide differences of practice between member states, subsidiarity is important—that means each acting according to his own need and his own willingness to sign up. I would like all in the European Union to respect that principle in employment and social legislation.

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose—

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: The second item of proposed legislation being prepared by my Department goes to the heart of Britain's economic future—the harnessing of the internet to business, and the contribution that electronic commerce will make to our competitiveness. Electronic commerce is radically changing the nature of individual businesses, markets and entire economies. However, most of our laws—in the United Kingdom and elsewhere—were designed to regulate the trade in physical goods. The countries that first succeed in adapting their legal and regulatory environment to the requirements of electronic commerce will achieve all the advantages of the first mover. We must be the trail-blazers, at the front of the pack.
There is a hugely important leadership role for my Department in partnership with the private sector. It must become nothing short of a national crusade for Britain to become world leaders in internet business and in generating electronic profits. That is why the Government have set the ambitious goal of creating in the United Kingdom the best environment in the world for electronic trading by 2002.
The White Paper on competitiveness, which I shall publish shortly, will set out our strategy for achieving that. At its heart will be legislation to ensure that businesses and consumers have the same confidence in electronic transactions as they do in pen-and-paper agreements.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Mandelson: No.
Those exciting developments are part of the fast evolving knowledge economy. With ever greater computing power and more connected, more international networks, the result is global competition on a vast scale, with low barriers to market entry and mind-boggling innovation.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Mandelson: No.
For the weak and uncompetitive in our economy, for those who are unwilling to change, this revolution will pose a threat. Only for the competitive and strong, for those who are open to new ideas, it presents a major opportunity.

Mr. Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Mandelson: No.

Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I fear that it will be a point of frustration.

Mr. Paterson: Correct, Madam Speaker. I have been in the House only 18 months, but I understand that it is the convention that one does not interrupt a ministerial statement but that one is allowed to ask to intervene during a debate. Is this a statement or a debate?

Madam Speaker: This is undoubtedly a debate, but of course it is for the Minister or whoever has the Floor to determine whether to accept an intervention. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mandelson: It is for all the reasons that I have given that we put so much stress on raising companies' competitiveness. To create and safeguard the employment that we need, we must ensure that the weak in our economy become the strong. Let us be clear: the knowledge revolution is not a revolution of an elite of knowledge-based services or high-tech businesses. It applies to such businesses, of course, but it applies to all businesses: to large and small; to manufacturing and services in all parts of the country.
Some question the relevance of the knowledge economy to manufacturing, but they forget about design, product control, market creation, marketing itself and best practice management, all of which require knowledge workers. To take an example that is topical this afternoon, farming is still one of the most manual of industries, but many modern tractors are mobile offices, and some even have satellite location devices installed.
The truth is that competitive advantage increasingly depends on knowledge: on new ideas for new products. Better use of knowledge means designing products that better suit customers' needs, creating less pollution, higher profits and more rewarding jobs.[Interruption.]

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: It does not surprise me that Opposition Front Benchers have no interest in the future

of the economy. They are chattering among themselves. To give them the chance to recover their posture, I shall give way, not to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) but to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is wearing a more highly coloured tie.

Mr. Paterson: I am touched by the compliment to my tie, but I wish to bring the Secretary of State back to the subject of the debate—trade and industry. Why do countries that have pursued the employment policies pushed through by his Government have levels of unemployment two or three times higher than those of this country, which is enjoying the benefits of the policies of the previous Government?

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman must realise that we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms. Our aim in employment legislation is simply to increase flexibility in our labour market and also—I am sorry it is an alien concept to Conservative Members—to introduce an element of fairness and minimum standards of safety and protection for people who work in this country. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to support that, given what he believes in and the party to which he belongs, but that is what we believe in and what we intend to do.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Graham Brady: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is performing a service for other Opposition Members who wish to intervene.
The Secretary of State suggested that he has no intention of adding costs to industry, which bemused Conservative Members. Has he read the submission by the Engineering Employers Federation to the Department of Trade and Industry about the enormous complexity of the regulations on the national minimum wage, and does he accept that there is a problem?

Mr. Mandelson: I do not know what the problem is to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Confederation of British Industry has made it clear that it is content with the way in which the Government have introduced the national minimum wage, and it has co-operated with us throughout. The CBI and others are now considering the draft regulations that we have published which will cover the implementation and enforcement of the national minimum wage. We look forward to hearing everyone's views in the consultation, and I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that every comment and observation submitted to my Department about those regulations will be carefully considered.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sheerman: The Opposition have brought the Engineering Employers Federation into the debate,


but those of us who regularly meet its representatives hear what they say about the inheritance of 18 years of failure to educate and train people in the new technologies. That is the real burden that our industry faces, especially engineering. It faces the lack of modern apprenticeships and not enough well-trained workers. That deficiency in skill levels is undermining our performance and it is an inheritance from that lot—the Conservatives—who have nothing to boast about.

Mr. Mandelson: Yes, and every business and employers' organisation I talk to knows that we have to make up for the lost time under the previous Administration. Those businesses and employers organisations have a profound understanding of where our economy is going and the challenges posed to every business by the creation of a knowledge-driven economy.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Phil Willis: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for bringing into the debate some of the real issues, one of which is the knowledge capital that we need for the next millennium. Why did not the Government include in the Gracious Speech a Bill to cover lifelong learning, especially as they published a Green Paper about it in the previous Session? Such a Bill should be at the heart of the Government's intentions for the development of human capital, and would address the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).

Mr. Mandelson: The very important initiative that was heralded by the lifelong learning Green Paper is already up and running. It has already been established that the headquarters of the university for industry will be in Sheffield. That represents an extremely important step forward for the knowledge capital to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. It creates huge opportunities for many millions of people in this country.
We need only look at the sources of competitiveness and lower costs that come from the development of the knowledge-driven economy. For example, General Motors saved $1.5 million on painting costs through the better use of information, and the General Electric Lighting company secured a 30 per cent. cut in procurement labour costs through internet purchasing.
In common with companies, countries need to stay ahead of the game or they will be replaced by new entrants.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mandelson: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I wish to make some more progress.
The forthcoming White Paper will set out how the Government plan to help build a knowledge-driven economy, to put the future on Britain's side and to reverse

this country's economic decline of the past 20 years or more. It will set out what we are doing to enhance the capability of business, how we plan to help businesses to collaborate with each other to compete and to collaborate with others in the public sector and in education, and how competitive markets should drive innovation and enterprise.

Caroline Flint: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mandelson: Let me make some more progress.
We have strengths on which to build in this country. We have a world-class science base, we have enterprising people—many with the right skills, but others willing to acquire them—and we have a strong digital infrastructure.
The Government are playing their part, with £1.4 billion additional funding in science announced in the comprehensive spending review, a programme of investment in education that is one of the largest committed by any Government anywhere and a programme to build up the skills of those starting new and innovative businesses. I set Business Links a challenge to support 10,000 such businesses a year by 2002. We are developing more imaginative ways of financing growth businesses and new measures to spread the adoption of digital technologies by small and medium-sized firms.
To underpin all those measures, we need a culture change to support enterprise, to applaud success and to remove the stigma of honest failure. Here again, the Government must give a stronger lead, and I shall be announcing measures to address that aspect, too.
This is not about Government telling business what to do. It is important that we lead through our own activities, in particular by working towards the Prime Minister's target that 25 per cent. of Government services should be available electronically by 2002. I stress that the greatest contribution the Government can make to enterprise is by ensuring that open and transparent markets provide the spur to business to innovate and become competitive. That is a key role and responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. We must ensure that all our policies—across the board—promote innovation and risk-taking, and help build the knowledge-driven economy in which enterprise flourishes.
When I spoke of the knowledge-driven economy and the importance of electronic commerce in our previous debate, the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the shadow spokesman, shouted, "Rubbish" and, "Claptrap." That is not surprising from someone who inhabits Planet Zog and remains blissfully unaware of the conditions and challenges facing business in the real world. I believe that he is wrong. In fact, he is more than wrong; he is being quite stupid. He refuses to see the opportunity that the information age and the knowledge-driven economy present to reverse the long years of decline that the Tories did nothing to prevent.
We are not going to take chances with Britain's future.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend please give way?

Mr. Mandelson: In advance of the White Paper—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend please give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I will give way soon if my hon. Friend will allow me to continue for the moment.
In advance of the White Paper, I can announce the Prime Minister's decision to appoint a high-ranking digital envoy—[Laughter.] See how the Tories laugh. They are locked somewhere in the last century and they have not the faintest idea of what is happening in the real economy, and not one idea or one shred of analysis to support the sort of economy that we must create.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: Locked in the past, locked in the past, locked in the past.
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to appoint a person to help prepare Britain for and to lead us into the digital future. That individual will speak for the United Kingdom in the international arena, will promote the United Kingdom as a global hub for electronic commerce business and investment, and will drive forward the cross-Government strategy for electronic commerce that I shall set out in the forthcoming White Paper. The advertisement for the new post will be in next week's press, but the shadow Secretary of State need not apply, as he seems far from looking to the future. We want someone who can look to the future, not someone who prefers to play politics with the nation's future and to talk down our economic prospects, as the right hon. Gentleman persistently does.

Mr. Barry Jones: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's cogent speech, and I enjoy his teasing of his shadow. May I tell him, however, of the sense of dread in the British steel industry? The problem appears to be the dumping of steel products from the far east, which is putting many of our largest steel works at a great disadvantage. Can the Government intervene to urge the European Commission to do something about such dumping?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of great concern to the steel industry and its employees. I recently met Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of British Steel, and the executive heads of the British Iron and Steel Producers Association. I learned at first hand the extremely difficult trading conditions that they face, and I heard the allegations that have been made of unfair trading and dumping by some countries. I have invited them to submit details to the Department of Trade and Industry, and to the competent body—the Commission of the European Union. It is for others to submit such details and allegations, but I shall ensure that allegations are properly examined, and that where action can and should be taken, everything will be done to ensure that it is.
I want to return to what the Opposition have said in the past. They have not said it today, but the shadow Secretary of State will no doubt remedy that fact when he rises to trot out the same tired phrases warning of economic catastrophe and disaster.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Paterson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I have given way once already to the hon. Member for North Shropshire, and I do not think that he should come back for a second go.
The shadow Secretary of State will accuse the Government not only of selling out the British economy, but of fiddling the figures and of making up the productivity gap, which, in fact, as everyone knows and as every independent commentator acknowledges, separates us from our competitors.[Interruption.] It is amazing how quickly after leaving office the Conservatives have ceased to resemble a governing party, and how hard they find it to muster the credibility needed by any half-decent official Opposition. Nowhere—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman may want to intervene later, because I was about to say that nowhere is that lack of credibility more demonstrated by the Opposition than in relation to Europe. The European Union gives the United Kingdom access to a market of 370 million consumers—it is by far our largest market. That is why, even though we will not be joining the economic and monetary union on 1 January, we are determined to work towards its successful introduction. Should it be in our economic interests to do so, and should Parliament and the people give their assent, we have made it clear that we believe that Britain should join. The Opposition are in a terrible mess.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State is dealing with an issue that is important for this country's future economic performance: the relationship between this country and Europe. The question for the Government is whether it is their policy to create convergence between this country and the member states of the euro. If not, do they believe that convergence circumstances could come about without that being their explicit policy?

Mr. Mandelson: It is certainly the case that one cannot create convergence between economies artificially by means of contrived accounting. There must be real convergence. Most people would agree that objective circumstances are leading us towards convergence and, indeed, the economic policies and strategies that the Government are pursuing are assisting that process. I have not the faintest idea whether that is welcome to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has adopted a number of positions on the single currency and it is Wednesday today, so I do not know what position he may be holding.

Mr. David Chidgey: Perhaps we could draw the debate back to the Government's position on the euro. I believe that I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman said that, when it was in Britain's economic interests to join, it would be the Government's policy to recommend that process. Will he advise the House of any scenario in which he felt it might not be in Britain's economic interests to join the euro?

Mr. Mandelson: If the convergence of our economies has not been achieved and if, in our opinion, the objective economic circumstances and the necessary structural reforms and flexibilities that need to exist throughout the economies of Europe have not yet been achieved. We have to fulfil all those tests. Those are important questions for us to answer, and answer them we will, but not now; we will do so in due course, when the economic


circumstances arise and when it is in our economic interests to do so. In the meantime, we will do what any half-intelligent Government would do, which is to prepare for the eventuality of our entry to the single currency so that, if and when we are in a position to enter it, we can put that choice to Parliament and the British people, who can then take that decision to go in. For us to do so successfully, British business must have prepared beforehand.

Mr. Geraint Davies: While I agree with the Government's policy, does my right hon. Friend agree with the 114 leading business men representing 20 FTSE companies, who put their names to a statement in the Financial Times on Monday and who said that the best policy for Britain would be one based on the assumption that we will join the single currency? The reverse would be that, if we proceed on the assumption that we will not join, there will be massive disinvestment in British industry.

Mr. Mandelson: We have to take very seriously the views of British business and, in particular, the views of those business people who signed the advertisement and made that statement, because they are operating not in the pursuit of some right-wing political ideology but in the interests of their business, and therefore the economic interests of this country. I talk to business men a lot—both to the mildly pro-Europe and the mildly anti. What unites them is their complete bewilderment and bemusement at the mess that the Opposition are in on the subject. We have only to listen to them on the subject. Some in the Conservative party say, "No single currency for 10 years." Others say, "Not in our lifetime." Given the average age of Conservative association members, I do not know which is the more Euro-sceptic position.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: No.
I want to be clear about this, too, and I emphasise it: if economic and monetary union is to be successful, there must be a flexible, competitive Europe and comprehensive structural reform in Europe's labour, product and capital markets. That is an absolutely indispensable condition for EMU to be launched successfully and on a sustainable basis. That is what we argued in our presidency, and it is what we shall continue to fight for through the processes agreed at the Cardiff summit.
I welcome the wide support across Europe for that agenda of structural reform, which has been voiced by Chancellor Schröder; Massimo D'Alema, the new Italian Prime Minister; and Dominique Strauss-Kahn in France. That unity of view, and that degree of consensus about the need for structural reform—economic reform—in Europe if the single currency is to be a success, is the most striking feature of the current political scene.

Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend may be aware that there is a lobby of Parliament today by textile workers. In relation to textiles and his argument about Europe, will his Department consider encouraging innovation in our small and medium textile enterprises?

Italy, for example, supports its textiles and clothing industry. This country has 350,000 workers in that industry, but many are in small and medium enterprises which need the thrust of the Government to support innovation and competition. I hope that we can learn something from our European neighbours.

Mr. Mandelson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the importance and the potential of that industry. I am glad to tell the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry only yesterday met representatives of the employers and of the trade unions, all of whom share that strong commitment to the future of the textiles industry. My Department stands by to assist them in all their efforts and to do everything that it can to make sure that the industry has a successful and prosperous future.
When we took office, we apparently inherited a golden economic legacy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members never tire of cheering that. They tell us that they left us a Ferrari of an economy—some Ferrari.

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: The Conservatives had put the economy up on blocks, stuck it in reverse and taken a large number of miles off the clock.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. In 1995, BMW-Rover said that Britain was the best place, bar none, in Europe for investment in the motor industry. When the Conservatives left office, the investment was proceeding and the company was profitable. Why is it now losing heavily? Why is there a crisis at Longbridge? Have not the Government's mistakes caused that?

Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that the Government do not own or run Rover; Rover owns and runs Rover, and that is how it will remain. I am sorry about what has happened to Rover, because it is an excellent company with great potential, but its slide in relative productivity did not start on 2 May 1997. It has its roots in lack of strategic grip and poor management decision making. Management decision making should have got on top of the situation a long time ago, before it created the difficult circumstances and conditions that now face the company.
I am glad that management and work force at Rover are now joined in a firm commitment to achieve changes and restructuring in the company to make sure that it has a future. The Government have stood by and helped to facilitate those important discussions within Rover, and we shall continue to do so. We shall give whatever support it is sensible and appropriate for us to give to ensure that those changes take place.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mandelson: Well, I—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I give the casting vote to the Speaker, who has given me the nod.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reluctantly giving way.
If the Minister is as concerned about competitiveness and regulation as he claimed earlier in his speech, why did he have the brass neck, on 4 November, to dismiss the CBI's estimate of an annual cost of £200 million for the parental leave directive as "a tiny fraction" of business costs? Why was he unaware that his Department had produced an alternative estimate of £55 million a year? Why was he so palpably ignorant of the matters for which he is ministerially responsible to this House?

Mr. Mandelson: That is a very important question, and it was well worth waiting for. I do not dismiss £200 million lightly, without coupling it with the observation—as I did—that employers and their representatives in Europe joined hands with trade union representatives in agreeing that the measures be adopted.

Mr. Bercow: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mandelson: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot agree, but that is his Euro-sceptic privilege. He agrees with nothing that comes within a million miles of the European Commission. An agreed measure was proposed, and this country would do well to implement it.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham is doubtless about to leap to his feet to disown the previous Government's record in office, as he spent our last debate doing, and say, "Not my fault, guy. All the others' doing. I was nowhere near the clot when the decisions were taken." I do not know what the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who is lurking on the Back Benches ready to intervene, will have to say about that. Incidentally, the entire House will join me in offering him our sincere congratulations on his new honour.
I for one am sick of the Tories disowning their record: macro-economic instability; a relentless cycle of boom and bust, which cost a million jobs every time they had to slam on the brakes; a huge productivity gap; a real performance shortfall, with no statistical fiddle, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham asserts; and a culture of social exclusion, with millions throughout the land cast aside with no skills, education, jobs or hope. Those people had a vote, and they used it at the last election. We started immediately to put things back together again.
I do not pretend that all is rosy in the economy. Anyone with half an eye on the world economy, a quarter of which is now experiencing recession, knows that all is not rosy. However, despite the Asian crisis, Britain's exports to Europe and the United States continue to grow in both value and volume. Employment rose by 124,000 in the three months to September, and we continue to attract record inward investment. This week, the Economist intelligence unit—not Millbank—announced that we remain one of the most favourable locations for investment in the world. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that it cited, in particular, Labour Britain's business-friendly climate, the sophistication of our capital markets and the fact that our labour market will remain one of the most flexible in the world as the reasons for our continuing to be a number one target for inward investment.
We have made it clear in the legislative plans announced in the Gracious Speech that this country's future depends on realising the potential of our people. It is no longer acceptable to write off one third of the

population through sheer neglect. They deserve better. We began to provide that on 2 May 1997, and we shall continue to do so in the coming Session.

Mr. John Redwood: We are thrice blessed in this debate. We are blessed with the presence of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is listening attentively.The Spectator named him a parliamentarian of the year in the award ceremony earlier today. I am sure that we all want to congratulate him. He may need our commiserations, because I understand that he is the "Minister to Watch". Some Ministers who are watched too closely never recover from the experience, but it is perhaps the Secretary of State who should watch out, because the Minister of State has shown himself to be a formidable performer over the years.
Our second blessing is the participation of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I am not surprised that the Secretary of State was so reluctant to take his interventions, because he won the award of "Back Bencher to Watch". I have been watching him for a long time, and I like what I see. He is not afraid to tell the truth and to threaten the Government.[Interruption.] Before Labour Members get too excited, I should point out that they were part of the conspiracy to close my hon. Friend down in this important debate. They knew that he would put the Secretary of State on the spot, so they had to give him some cover and protection.
Our third blessing is that we are honoured with the presence of the Secretary of State, on his most recent visit from cyberspace. He delivered a virtual speech. I wondered whether the parade of platitudes would ever end, and whether he would mention British industry. We had to drag it out of him by interventions and questions. He even seemed tired of his own monotonous tone of voice. It was a dreadful performance from the Secretary of State, and it will not go unnoticed in the industrial heartlands of this country.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): It says here.

Mr. Redwood: The Minister of State believes that my remarks are scripted. How could they possibly be scripted when I am responding to the debate from notes I made during the Secretary of State's speech, so that I do him no conceivable injustice? When I have finished with this sheet, the Minister is welcome to inspect it to see that I came, I listened and I discovered that the speech was sadly lacking in any substance, any hope for British industry or any sign that the Secretary of State understands why British manufacturers are struggling.
The shadow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), said in a debate the other day that what we see of the Government's attitude to manufacturing industry is
four soundbites and a funeral."—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 197.]
Once again, the Secretary of State came to the House to perform the last rites. So worried is he about the state of manufacturing industry, that he can get through an entire script—although not all the interventions—without mentioning British manufacturing or British industry.


There was no mention of the textile workers on a lobby, and no mention of the plight of British steel.[Interruption.] I just said that there were interventions on these matters, but there was no mention in the Secretary of State's text of the textile and steel industries, and his only reference to the motor car industry was an attempted joke at the expense of the previous Government.
The Secretary of State does not care about basic manufacturing industry, about closures or about the damage that his policies are doing. He said that the Opposition have no policies to modernise Britain. That is grossly unfair. In the area over which the Secretary of State and I spar, the Opposition are coming up with imaginative ideas that could make a difference and improve life. Why is the Secretary of State still unable to say whether he will introduce competition into the water industry? We have set out a way of doing that. That important monopoly industry needs the competitive challenge. If he is so keen on competition, why will he not answer our question, and why will he not back our plan?
When will the right hon. Gentleman respond to our plans for the Post Office? Why must we wait for month after month, with our Post Office unable to compete properly because its hands are tied behind its back by the Secretary of State's lack of a policy? When will his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions produce policies aimed at raising significant private finance for the tube system, which desperately needs new investment and has been starved of cash by this miserable Government?

Yvette Cooper: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about policy, perhaps he can clear up a key policy issue that greatly concerns British industry.
Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman shook his head vigorously when the Prime Minister suggested that his party wanted to reverse Bank of England independence. Perhaps he will clear up that point of principle now. Does he support the deputy leader of his party, who said that interest rate decisions should be made by the Chancellor and not by the Bank of England?

Mr. Redwood: I shook my head at the Prime Minister's pathetic performance in response to the formidable performance of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—although their respective performances did not surprise me.
I have been very clear about my position, the position of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the position of all members of the shadow Cabinet in regard to the Bank of England. We opposed granting it independence. We said that that would be very damaging, and we were right: so far, it has proved very damaging to British business. In 2001 or thereabouts, when we have a general election, we will tell the hon. Lady and her colleagues what is the right policy for 2002. She can read nothing into that answer, except that the Opposition have been right so far. They have opposed the independence of the Bank of England vigorously, because so far it has been wrong. But of course we shall look carefully at the situation in 2001, when there will be so many things to put right that we shall have to choose which to put right first.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can raise another sensitive little subject. If the euro were

to succeed, and if the European countries benefited generally from its introduction, would the Conservative party go into the next general election on the basis of wholesale opposition and refusal to join the currency?

Mr. Redwood: There is no way in which a case for the success of the euro can be proved by the time of the next election. The euro notes and coin will not even be in circulation by that time. We are saying that we should not rush in. We should see the euro through at least a complete economic cycle. We must see the whole scheme up and running—and that means the notes and coin as well as the bank accounts and the invoicing, which will go ahead on a random basis from the beginning of January next year, depending on the choice of agents and companies on the continent.
The hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that the Conservative party will go proudly into the next election saying no to the euro for the following Parliament, because it would be too risky for the United Kingdom—for her businesses and her democracy—to join the scheme on such a time scale. I only wish that the Labour party had the courage to put the matter to the British people now. We would love to fight the referendum now: the Conservatives would achieve a spectacular result, and British business could then be relieved of its uncertainty. The Government should understand that that uncertainty is caused by their ridiculous policy. They say that they wish to join the European currency—

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mandelson: Give way.

Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State will know that, unlike him, I am going to give way at any minute, but I am making an important point. The Government should know that the uncertainty is of their making. Business does not know whether to spend £10 billion or £15 billion on preparing for the euro as our currency—because the Government say that in principle they want it—or whether to take our advice, and decide that the Government will not win the election or the referendum and that it is therefore better to save the money. That is the uncertainty that the Government are creating for business.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his characteristically generous remarks a few moments ago.
Does my right hon. Friend not think it extraordinary that, for all his ostensible enthusiasm for the United States economy, the Secretary of State, when challenged before the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 4 November about the merits of sunset regulation in the United States—whereby regulations lapse automatically after a period if they are not considered useful—said that he did not know what that meant?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, even at this late stage, he can educate the Secretary of State?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I get to my feet, the hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Mr. Bercow: I have finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has finished, because I have finished him. His interventions are far too long.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made a very powerful point. It is amazing


that a Secretary of State who speaks the language of deregulation has no idea what a sunset regulation might be. It shows that he is not thinking the language of deregulation into action. The first thing that one learns when deregulating is to ensure that no regulation can last too long, and that a positive act must renew it if it can be demonstrated that it continues to be required.
The Secretary of State spent most of his speech on the subject of electronic commerce. He dared to say that the Opposition do not understand the importance of it, and implied that we do not wish the industry well. He should know that I come from the Thames valley, which is at the forefront of electronic commerce. I am extremely proud of my constituents' achievements in companies there. I can tell the Secretary of State this for nothing: they know a great deal more about electronic commerce than he ever will. They are already running very dramatic, profitable and successful businesses using electronic commerce, and the last thing they want from him is messy, meddlesome regulation which could make their task more difficult. He would be well advised to be careful before his regulation intrudes into a very successful and growing part of the British economy.

Mr. Mandelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up something for me? He talks about messy, meddling intervention. Why, therefore, was it the Conservative party's policy when in office to introduce legislation on mandatory licensing?

Mr. Redwood: The form of that licensing did not result in preventing people from doing things that they wished to do, or restricting their action. It was put out to consultation. The issue before us is whether it is a good idea for the Secretary of State to press on with legislation which many in the industry think is half-baked, not thought through and potentially damaging.

Mr. Mandelson: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I will give way when I have finished my point. The Secretary of State should know that the advice that I have taken so far from the industry is that the Bill is in search of a policy—as always with this DTI—and that the ideas so far are different from those of the previous Conservative Administration and would be damaging.

Mr. Mandelson: The proposed electronic commerce Bill will introduce a voluntary licensing regime for bodies providing electronic signature and confidentiality services. What is the Opposition's policy? Is it to stick with the unpopular policy that they had in government, or to support ours? Which is it?

Mr. Redwood: Our policy now is to be very careful about any legislation in this area and to be very critical of proposals that we think will emerge in the Bill. The Secretary of State is not in a position today to tell the House how he intends to regulate inscription and signature. I am very suspicious of him finding a way of doing so with any success. Assuming that he will not, I assure him that we shall oppose the legislation. Does he wish to intervene to clarify what he will do?

Mr. Mandelson: I just do not understand this. Where and when did this conversion take place, and for

what reason? The previous Government proposed a policy of statutorily backed mandatory licensing. Why has the right hon. Gentleman changed his view?

Mr. Redwood: I do not seem to remember supporting that proposition at the time—[Interruption.] We have consulted widely on these matters. Trying to legislate successfully in the area would be hazardous. We shall be very critical of any Government proposal which we think could be damaging. I am quite sure that those who worked on the proposals under the previous Government would be very happy to explain what they had in mind, and will be free to table amendments in Committee to try to make the Bill more to our joint liking. According to my industry sources, the Government's proposals are a long way from the previous Government's original ideas and would be very damaging—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: indicated assent.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that businesses in the Thames valley might think from what he is saying that he is putting a higher priority on a petty attempt to put down the Secretary of State than on their future profitability? When I talk to them, I certainly expect that to be their interpretation of his remarks.

Mr. Redwood: I do not think that the hon. Lady understands the matter, either. I have consulted on the issue with businesses in and just outside my constituency, and have promised to represent their views. On both encryption and signature, they are very worried that even a permissive, voluntary system could damage their commercial interests.[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is not interested in the issue. He is making that quite clear by his juvenile sedentary interventions.
I assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition are very concerned that we must have the best possible climate in all senses—tax, regulation and general economic performance—for the success of the electronic commerce industry.
I assure the Secretary of State also that I am well aware that we are one of the world leaders in the industry. There are some things that we can learn from the United States, and some things that it can learn from us. There is work to be done on that. However, I am not yet satisfied that the measures that he will propose will help the cause of electronic commerce in Britain. He must allow me to reserve my scepticism until he can make a better case and tell us what he intends to do on the issues, with specific answers to specific questions.

Mr. Chidgey: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point, will he tell us whether, in the previous


Government, on third-party confidentiality of encryption, he was ever a supporter of the concept that GCHQ should be the third party?

Mr. Redwood: I never expressed a view on that matter, which is very ancient history. It would be much better if the House concentrated on debating the present and the future rather than what might or might not have been said or done some years ago under the previous Government.
The Queen's Speech fails to deal with the pressing problems of British industry and commerce. It proposes taking power away from people and giving it to politicians. It puts Labour politicians first and people last. The public are not clamouring for reform of the House of Lords but demanding more jobs, and better schools and hospitals.
The Queen's Speech does absolutely nothing to stop the collapse in manufacturing industry that we are witnessing daily. There is nothing in it to prevent a single factory closure. Worst of all, under this Secretary of State, it threatens to undo much of the good that was done to United Kingdom industrial relations in the 1980s and 1990s.
We fear that the Queen's Speech will take us back to the bad old days, back to the bad old ways. I pay tribute to both Conservative Prime Ministers in the previous Government, one of whom is in the Chamber, for their success in changing the industrial relations climate and industrial relations law.[Interruption.] Yes, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) on his recent honour, which is a fitting tribute to, among other things, the contribution that the Conservative Government made to industrial peace and harmony—something which Labour could never achieve in its days in office in the 1970s.
Labour's Euro-election system is designed to take the power to choose a candidate from people and to give it to politicians. Labour's trade union changes are designed to take the power of choice from individual workers and to give it to trade union leaders. Labour's grammar school proposals are designed to take the power of choice from parents and pupils attending those schools—a power from which, in various capacities, many of us have benefited over the years. Labour's transport policy allows Ministers to circulate in ministerial cars in style, leaving the rest of us to hire taxis and to gridlock.
The Opposition offers a better vision of the future than the miserable vision on offer in the Queen's Speech. Our vision goes with the grain of human nature. It is one that trusts people to make more of their own choices, and strengthens rather than undermines people's democratic rights.
People are being let down by the Government's merciless assault on manufacturing. High interest rates, high sterling, high taxes and greater regulation are all making their impact felt. Day after day, we see job loss after job loss. Day after day, we see factory closure after factory closure—usually in the constituencies of Labour members.

Mr. Geraint Davies: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned high exchange rates. How would he control them? Does he agree with Oskar Lafontaine, the German

Finance Minister, that there should be currency target zones? If not, how would he control exchange rates? Would he set the Monetary Policy Committee two targets, one for prices and one for exchange rates? If so, how would he overcome the conflicts inherent in those targets?

Mr. Redwood: When there was a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to take responsibility for these matters, he took the exchange rate into account when forming interest rate judgments—and did a rather better job for manufacturing in the mid-1990s before we lost office than the Labour Government are able to do through their independent central bank. I know which of those business would rather have at the moment. My advice to the Monetary Policy Committee and the Chancellor is to take into account the impact that the current mix of high taxes, high exchange rate and high interest rates is having on manufacturing, because it is clearly doing an enormous amount of damage.
During the past seven days, 1,000 jobs have gone at BTR Siebe and 268 at William Baird, and 1,600 are going at British Steel. What do the Government say in the Queen's Speech is the answer—that we should abolish hereditary peers in the House of Lords just in case they might be a voice for manufacturing.[Interruption.] Labour Members obviously do not like any disagreement with Government policy and the pager message. That is why they want to get rid of independent voices in the House of Lords. But they still cannot tell us what they will replace them with, because they do not want any independent voices in the House of Lords. When the other place has finished standing up for our right to choose a candidate in an election, I hope that it will stand up for the right of manufacturers to have a decent deal from this Government.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: In the interests of industry at large, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that we should retain hereditary peers in the House of Lords?

Mr. Redwood: The Opposition have made it clear that the Government should not get rid of one part of the House of Lords until they have something better to put in its place. We would be happy to listen to what the Government have to say about a better solution. If they came up with one, I dare say we would welcome it. In the meantime, we are holding our own inquiry into the matter, which will run in parallel with the royal commission. It is nonsense to get rid of a chunk of the House of Lords before the royal commission has reported on how that can best be organised.
Since we last debated the crisis in manufacturing a few weeks ago, 600 jobs have gone at Ionica, 225 at Desmond and Sons, 100 at Sally Ferries, 300 at British Gas, 90 at ICI, 80 at Coopers Tools and 70 at Umbro—I could go on with a much longer list. A job goes every 10 minutes, but still the Secretary of State will do nothing. He will not even debate the issue in the House when we give him the opportunity to do so.

Yvette Cooper: If the right hon. Gentleman cares so much about job losses and unemployment, why does he want to abolish the new deal?

Mr. Redwood: Because it is not working. The Conservative Government got far more young people into


work and back to work under a sensible economic policy and without a new deal, at much less cost to the public purse, than the Government are doing at some cost to the public purse. The hon. Lady claims to know about Treasury affairs. Perhaps, unlike the Secretary of State, she has read the minutes of the MPC meetings over recent months. If she has, she will have noted that it was fears about the minimum wage and the increase in public spending that led to interest rates staying higher for longer than manufacturing could afford. She should be urging lower public spending, which is what our view on the new deal would achieve.

Yvette Cooper: While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of interest rates, is he aware that, if they rose to the 15 per cent. level that they were under his Government, that would cost British business an extra £28 billion? Is that the sort of interest rate setting policy to which he wants us to return?

Mr. Redwood: The Opposition do not want interest rates at that level. If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others have been urging lower rates, not higher. She may wish to reflect on the fact that, when interest rates were that high, Britain was in the exchange rate mechanism—a policy which those on her Front Bench supported to the rafters. It was the only economic policy we followed that the Labour party supported, and it supported it fully. It has never apologised, to this day, for the mistake it made in that particular case.[Laughter.] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. They well know that not all Conservatives wanted the problems that occurred in the early 1990s, and they well know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made a suitable apology, as I have often reminded the House.
What do the Government do about all the job losses? They make the problem worse by making it more expensive to make goods in Britain—£2,300 million extra each year for the working time regulations; £2,900 million a year extra for the minimum wage; and now trade union laws that will make it more difficult and costly to make goods in Britain.
Before Labour Members think that they have a clever point to make about my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, let me put a point to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend cared deeply about jobs in Britain, and one of things he did in Europe was to make sure that we had the right not to go into damaging social chapter measures, which are now coming in, thick and fast, under the Labour Government. I applaud what my right hon. Friend did, because he did it in the best interests of Britain. It worked: a lot of investors came here in the mid-1990s, thanking him for keeping us out of those damaging regulations. Now, we are being dragged in.
Why did the Secretary of State not keep us out of the social chapter, and instead judge each measure on its merits? He told us today that conditions vary around the European Union and that some countries need different labour measures from others. I agree. Why did he not keep the power, which my right hon. Friend protected, to choose separate labour measures for this country?

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he can

reconcile his opposition to giving employment rights to part-time workers, who are mostly women, with his party's apparent support for the family?

Mr. Redwood: We think that the best support one can give the family is to have a labour market that works—one that makes it more likely that one or both of the parents can get a job if that is their choice or their need. We are extremely worried about the accumulation of too many burdens which, far from helping the people who most need help—those who have the fewest skills, or those who have been out of work for a long time—will make it more difficult for them to get the jobs that they need. That is not a family-friendly policy, but economic illiteracy of the first order.

Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady's point did not succeed the first time, and I doubt that it will fare better the second time.
With all those regulations coming in, it is no wonder that so many companies are giving up and taking their business elsewhere. The Secretary of State should take note of the warnings from Marks and Spencer. After decades of buying British and backing British manufacturers, the company has concluded that it must buy a lot more abroad in order to stay in the marketplace. That has happened under the Labour Government—Marks and Spencer did not do it under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. It is a direct threat to the jobs of the textile workers who came to lobby the House today. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it? Does he not see that it is because he has made it too dear to make things in Britain that Marks and Spencer has come to that sad judgment?
If the Secretary of State wants further evidence, this morning we read in an excellent article in The Daily Telegraph that Rolls-Royce Engines will move its production to the United States of America if the Government inflict any more costly burdens on employment from Brussels. That is a stark warning from a senior industrialist who is not a Euro-sceptic fanatic of the sort the Secretary of State likes to deride, but a serious business man who runs a big, competitive and successful international enterprise and who is now issuing a warning to the Secretary of State, to the Government and to the whole European Union that they are getting it wrong and that they are going to destroy jobs.

Mr. Mandelson: It would be as well to state for the record what Sir Ralph said. He said:
The last thing we want is the on-costs associated with the social costs of Europe, but I don't see any sign of its happening and the current government is not going down that path.

Mr. Redwood: The Government are going down that path. They are in no position to resist it, because the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and their right


hon. Friends have given away the UK's power to make our own decisions—[Interruption.] There is nothing they can do, so the threat is real—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must be quiet in the Chamber.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What protection does the gentleman from Rolls-Royce have against a direct misquote from an Opposition spokesman? How can he answer that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it was a misquote. There has been a contribution, which was rebutted by the Secretary of State in an intervention. That is what debate is all about—people put an argument and others rebut it. It is not expected that hon. Members should, while seated, throw arguments across the Chamber.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for your wise judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it odd that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had to raise that as a point of order, when I have given way to all those who want me to give way and would be happy to debate that point with him.

Mr. Tim Collins: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in just a moment.
The position is clear. The story is for all to see in The Daily Telegraph today. The Secretary of State has offered a further quotation, but the fact remains that the Government cannot resist the very threat that the gentleman in question mentioned, because they have thrown away our power of independent government in that respect.

Mr. Collins: On the subject of Rolls-Royce, would my right hon. Friend care to respond to the fact that Rolls-Royce briefed me and a number of other hon. Gentlemen about its grave concern that the Secretary of State is contemplating eliminating CARAD—the civil aviation research and demonstration scheme—the research programme on which aerospace, Britain's most important manufacturing industry, depends?

Mr. Redwood: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for that worrying intelligence. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will answer that question, as it greatly concerns one of Britain's most successful industries. Even the Secretary of State would agree that it has done a pretty good job over recent years, although he is a hard taskmaster when it comes to awarding any plaudits to managers or employees in British industry.
What will it take to make the Government listen? Many of the most important people in the debate agree that, if

we want more jobs, we must make it cheaper, not dearer, to employ people. One important figure in the debate said:
Lowering labour costs forms one of the main methods of making entrepreneurial activity attractive again … I favour lowering labour costs, particularly for lower skilled people at the bottom end of the scale.
Labour Members are quiet because they are hoping that I was quoting Baroness Thatcher or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but I have to disappoint them. It was Gerhard Schröder, Germany's new Chancellor. He went on to say:
Similar methods are needed to adapt working time … In fifteen years' time only half of those employed in the German economy will benefit from a secure, full time job".
Gerhard Schröder predicts that, the more protection there is for the favoured ones in big companies, the less protection and the less success there will be for everyone else. That is exactly our worry about the current trend of Government policy and European policy generally. In other words, Gerhard Schröder is saying that, at exactly the same time as Britain is making it dearer to employ people and imposing more regulations making it less flexible, Germany knows that she needs to go in entirely the opposite direction.
I have another interesting quote from a little nearer home. A self-appointed luminary here in the United Kingdom tells us:
Jobs for life are gone, nine to five working is no longer the norm. No amount of social regulation can protect jobs in an economy that becomes uncompetitive.
Labour Back Benchers had better steel themselves for two pieces of bad news about that quote. First, I have some sympathy with it, and secondly, of course, it comes from the pen of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If he believes that Britain has to be more competitive, why is he doing so much to undermine our competitiveness?
If the Secretary of State agrees with Gerhard Schröder about needing to make it cheaper and easier to employ people, why has Labour decided to make it so much dearer? If he is telling us the truth when he says:
We do not want to second guess markets or substitute for management decisions"—
another snappy quote from the right hon. Gentleman—why is he busily doing just that with minimum wages, new trade union proposals and many more regulations? Does he realise that people on low wages will soon realise that they have been cheated as well? The idea of the minimum wage is not to boost their living standards, which would be a noble idea, but to cut their benefit top-ups, as is clear from the way in which the measure was introduced.
Has the Secretary of State seen last month's massive trade deficit in manufactured goods reported in today's announcement? Labour has at last broken new economic records, having achieved the largest ever single month's trade deficit in goods—it is a monumental example of their monumental incompetence. If we make it too dear to make things in Britain, naturally we will all sell less abroad and buy more from overseas. It is a sure sign that Labour is not working and that Labour is bad for business.
The Opposition say that we should give manufacturing a break, free it from regulations and reduce the taxes. It is no good saying that it should be easier and cheaper to make things in Britain, but do nothing about it;


the Government should do a U-turn before it is too late to save manufacturing jobs and factories and free business to compete and succeed.
The Secretary of State is, of course, in a perpetual spin. First he tells us that Brazil is such an important market that he must go there twice in the same year. Then he decides that he must cancel the trip. After months of telling us that the visit was crucial, he now tells us that it was an unnecessary hangover from his predecessor's regime. If that is so, why did he not cancel it when he first took up his job? That would have minimised the embarrassment to Britain. How much business is at risk from the cancellation of the trip?

Mr. Mandelson: May I explain? It was arranged only last Wednesday that Trade and Industry questions would take place slap bang in the middle of the visit. Of course I had to cancel; if I had not, I would not have been here to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Redwood: I find it touching that the right hon. Gentleman takes his duties to the House so seriously. However, it is in the Government's power to choose the schedule for questions; I would have been amenable to any proposal to move questions to another day to accommodate the Secretary of State's important trade trip to Brazil. We need to know what meetings he had to cancel and what business is at risk, as we had been told that the trip represented a very necessary expenditure of public money.
Such rudeness to an overseas country is perhaps not surprising given the Government's appalling record in promoting British exports—they have thrown away millions of pounds of orders from Chile by their cack-handed handling of the Pinochet case. Like the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is a walking disaster when it comes to diplomacy in Britain's commercial interest. On his most recent visit to Brazil, he sparked an unfortunate political row when he criticised the Workers party.
The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, insulted many others, including the horny-handed sons of toil, as he calls them, in his constituency. He has also condemned most of his Cabinet colleagues as cowards. Looking at today's press, I think that the charge of cowardice would be more fairly levelled at him than at many of those with whom he tries to work.
The Guardian today reports that it has been told by sources close to the right hon. Gentleman that the Confederation of British Industry has been rebuffed over the fairness at work Bill. We are told authoritatively that the Bill will represent a decisive shift of direction in favour of the trade unions. Meanwhile, The Times is told equally authoritatively that the Secretary of State
has angered unions by considering employers' demands to water down elements of the White Paper".
The master of spin is caught red-handed—or is it blue-handed? A newspaper that inclines to the unions is told that he is the friend of the full trade union monty, whereas a newspaper with unhappy memories of trade union activity is told that he is a friend of business, valiantly trying to stifle the baser instincts of his predecessor and some of his colleagues.
Is not the House owed some straight talking? I remember the Secretary of State's promise: "No more spin, honest." Is he backing the unions or the CBI? In a

debate with me on television today, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield, was unable to answer, as he still had not had his instructions from the Secretary of State. A Bill is to be introduced, but we still do not know who has won and what the decision will be on crucial issues.
Will there be automatic trade union recognition if 50 per cent. or more of the work force in a firm or place of employment are already members of the union? If so, that will be, as I assumed, a victory for the trade unions. Will he raise or abolish the ceiling on unfair dismissal compensation? He seems to say yes—at last, after all the spinning, an honest nod from the Secretary of State, saying that the unions have won after all. What a surprise.
The Secretary of State must be dizzy from so much spinning, but eventually the spinning must stop. He must decide not only those issues, but how the minimum wage legislation will work and how the competition mess—a Bill in search of a policy—will be sorted out. He must also sort out the Post Office, energy policy and all the other things heaped on his desk that he seems unable to determine.
The right hon. Gentleman prides himself on being a man of great influence on the press. For the most part, he has little need to worry about unfriendly stories. He can call proprietors and editors—with a few brave exceptions—and have a journalist dealt with if a story is not to his liking.
The Secretary of State should remember that the issue before the British people at the next election will not be who has been the best spin master, but what is the reality. They will know the reality—whether we have more strikes or fewer and more manufacturing jobs or fewer, and whether people are investing here in new factories or closing factories down. They will have rumbled the Secretary of State, however good the spin. Today, the spin has gone horribly wrong, because he has been caught, through his agents, saying different things to different audiences about the same subject.[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) wish to intervene? Obviously not. He thought better of it, because he realises that the Secretary of State cannot be defended.
The Secretary of State should remember Wapping. He should remember the damage that union action did to the newspaper industry. He should remember the terrible scenes of unions set against management. He should remember worker set against worker, and the picket lines and strife that characterised the bad old days of the 1970s and early 1980s before the Conservative Government reformed industrial relations. We do not want to see that again, and we fear that disrupting the settlement that we left the Government could bring back those dreadful old ways.
Now, the Secretary of State has decided to gum up the works in the exciting world of the internet and electronic communications. Perhaps he is so worried that the new media will not be on clean feed from Millbank tower that he wants to legislate to make sure that he can crack all their codes. Clearly, he wants to know what is going on in this new world. As I have explained, we have strong reservations about giving the Secretary of State this power, and about the wisdom of trying to freeze the technology while it is developing so rapidly. We are worried that the Secretary of State's wish to legislate on signatures and authority is a back-door way for the Government to damage our freedom.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State is in the mood to answer one more question. Has he decided that he has to ditch Labour's pre-election policy on this very issue? Before the election, Labour said:
Attempts to control the use of encryption technology are worrying in principle, unworkable in practice and damaging to the long term economic value of the information networks.
Labour went on to say, in an unusually vivid phrase, that there was
no fundamental difference between an encrypted file and a locked safe.
Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Would Houdini like to get out of that one? Is that not a dramatic change of policy? Is not the truth that the Secretary of Stare is so ashamed of what is going on in manufacturing that he wishes to claim the credit for internet and cyberspace technology, and has decided that the only way to do that is to put through a Bill? Now, having decided that he must try to invent something to go in the Bill, he has latched on to what Governments always latch on to in these circumstances—the wish to regulate, control and interfere in people's private business.
The Secretary of State is in grave danger of running up against all those who believe in freedom and liberty in our country—people who are very worried about this dramatic 180 deg U-turn on this crucial policy by the Labour Administration.
The new Government in Germany are waking up to the problems of their social models at exactly the same time as the British Government are bringing in the old German model to this country. The new Chancellor of Germany has stated:
More than 4 million people out of work and their families are paying the price of insufficient economic flexibility.
Meanwhile, the British Government claim that Europe is coming our way.
The Government say that there will not be more or higher taxes, but that there will be more flexible labour markets. They say that getting people back to work across Europe is the new number one priority. Yet everything we see from their deliberations in Europe is pointing in the other direction. According to Mr. Santer—who should know—the Government have signed up to more and higher taxes from Brussels.
As recently as 1997, the Government signed up to a document which said:
tax measures which provide for a significantly lower effective level of taxation, including zero taxation, than those levels which generally apply in the Member State in question are to be regarded as potentially harmful and therefore covered by this code … Member States commit themselves to re-examining their existing laws and established practices, having regard to the principle underlying the code … Member States will amend such laws and practices as necessary".
I agree that that is not as clearly drafted as we might like, but it means in effect that the Government have signed up to higher taxation in the name of banning so-called unfair taxation. There it is, lock on the door, in a Commission document, clearly understood by Mr. Santer, who has translated it into better English than the original document.
The new European document, to which the Europeans signed up only last month, goes even further. It says:
We welcome the political agreement reached among Member States on the fiscal packages as a first step in the right direction. EMU will intensify the potential for tax competition. Therefore, further efforts have to be undertaken to avoid harmful tax competition among the Member States.
That is crystal clear: unfair tax competition is having lower taxes than one's neighbours. Britain had lower taxes, thanks to the two previous Prime Ministers. As a result, we have considerably lower unemployment than on the continent, which is another welcome divergence engineered by Conservative Ministers.
Labour wants to destroy both competitive advantages at a stroke, with a policy that drives up manufacturing unemployment and takes away some of our business tax advantages. The Government say maybe to another savings tax from Europe and to more VAT.[Laughter.]
Government Back Benchers find this so uncomfortable that they are behaving in a silly way. They well know that the Government have blown it on common taxation and they do not know how to defend the position, so they will not intervene or contribute to the debate, but merely try to disrupt it in a rather juvenile way.
The Government say maybe to more VAT. Indeed, the directive proposed in June says:
the objective of this Directive, which is that of the effective taxation of savings income within the Community, cannot be sufficiently realised by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved by the Community.
The proposal is to negotiate on that directive to create a uniform and high savings tax throughout Europe, which will damage savers and especially the City of London.
The Government say that they are out to modernise this country. They should have said that they are out to demolish it. They claimed that they would keep Scotland in the Union, but devolution is threatening that Union. They said that devolution would crush Scottish nationalism overnight, but it has given it a great new strength. They claimed that they wanted a strong Parliament, but they are out to abolish the second Chamber in all but name, because it dared to disagree, and they like to stifle debate in this Chamber whenever possible.
The Government told the Liberals that they would be important if they went on to Labour pagers, but Labour Back Benchers could have told them that it does not quite work like that. They claimed that they would transfer power to people, but they are taking it away from them. They said that they would stand up for Britain in Europe, but they have sold us out in Europe on taxation and labour market regulation. They said that they would encourage manufacturing, but they are closing it down. They said that they believed in freedom of information, but in practice they believe in secrecy.
I see that the Secretary of State does not believe that he should listen to these important charges against the Government. He knows that they have broken yet another crucial promise on freedom of information.
Far from modernising our democracy, the Government are undermining it, boosting Scottish nationalism and fuelling a false English patriotism. They are trying to do to Parliament what Guy Fawkes was prevented from doing. Their constitutional gunpowder is exploding dangerously. They are doing untold damage. Conservative


Members will fight for the industry that we want to protect, for the democracy that we love and for the country that we serve.

Ms Harriet Harman: rose—

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend. In view of Madam Speaker's specific request this afternoon, I have cancelled my arrangements and I will wind up the debate. I thought that it was courteous to let the House know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Harriet Harman.

Ms Harman: During the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), my hon. Friends began to form a lobby to beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bring in the working time directive and extend it straight away to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches.
Having returned to the Back Benches after 14 years on the Front Benches, I should like to return to an issue that I raised when I was first a Back Bencher and have pursued and been committed to ever since—family-friendly employment, which, I am delighted to say, the Government have included in their legislative plans. I firmly believe that that is one of the most important and modernising parts of the Government's legislative programme.
Under "Fairness at Work", parents will, for the first time, have the legal right to take time off work when their children need them. The right to family leave is of immense practical and symbolic importance to millions of parents and their children. It is vital for the growing number of women who juggle their responsibilities at work with their responsibilities towards their children. It is also an important signal that the Government recognise that a growing number of fathers want to be there when their child is born and to play a greater part in caring for their children, as well as working to provide for them. Above all, it is important for children, because it recognises that they need their parents' time, as well as seemingly vast quantities of their money.
There are times when a child needs his or her parent, and when only a parent will do. The world of work has changed, and so have families. The legislation recognises that. Britain's competitiveness, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke so passionately, depends on its work force, half of whom are now women.
Women work because they want to. They now have educational qualifications that are equal to men's. They have a contribution to make to the world of work, and they have the custody of half of what my right hon. Friend described as this country's knowledge capital.
Women work because they need to. Nearly half the children in this country depend on the woman's earnings as well as the man's, and nearly half the mothers with children under five are now working.
Women also work because we need them to. There is not an industry or a service in any sector of the economy that would survive without women's work. Many women

work to set an example to their children that life is about work and not merely about depending on benefits. That is especially important for the 2 million children who are being brought up by a lone mother.
Women's work is not optional: it is an integral part of our modern economy. Women are here to stay as part of our work force. As well as being indispensable to the modern world of work, they remain indispensable to their children. It is still mothers who shoulder most of the responsibility for children and nearly all the responsibility for domestic tasks, although fathers are getting more involved in the care of their children, which is a welcome trend that is set to continue.
The Government will continue to modernise public policy to catch up with the changing world at work and the changing life of families. The Government are introducing a national child care strategy to ensure high-quality affordable child care for all who want it, helping children to flourish and ensuring that their parents can work without worry. The Government established the new deal for lone parents, recognising for the first time that jobcentres should help mothers who want to work even if they are not registered as unemployed.
The Government are introducing the minimum wage and the working families tax credit so that fathers do not have to work all hours to make ends meet and thereby discover that they are exiled from the lives of their own children and their home.
The legal right to family leave takes another step forward. It joins together many different parts of the Government's modernising agenda. It is a substantial and practical part of our determination to be a family friendly Government and to put families and parenting at the heart of our policy. It is an important part, too, of our welfare-to-work policy, especially for women. It is part of our rights and responsibilities agenda for fathers.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Lady is making a passionate case for family-friendly legislation. Does she agree that one of the great omissions from the Queen's Speech is a Bill to reform the Child Support Agency, a great abomination which still exists and which undermines family values?

Ms Harman: I made a statement in the House earlier this year saying that we will introduce reforms of the Child Support Agency, but it is important to consult and get it right. That is why it is right to have a pre-legislative stage and to consult, especially with the Select Committee, to ensure that we get right the difficult but important area of fathers' continuing responsibilities to provide financially for their children even though they no longer live with them. We need a fair balance among fathers, their new families, lone mothers, the children and the taxpayer. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to worry on that score, because the Government will take that agenda forward.
Family leave is part of the new agenda of flexibility in the labour market, with changing working patterns demanded by both employers and employees. It is also an important and practical way to help carers. I wish to make four suggestions to the Government about family leave: they should consult business; they should monitor the implementation of family leave; they should pay for some of it; and they should include carers.
First, when it comes to consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will discover that many businesses are light years ahead of the Government and public policy on the issue of family leave. I urge him to learn, as I am sure he will, from their experience, to listen to their advice and to build on their good practice. Organisations such as Opportunity 2000 and many individual employers will offer help and advice.
I suggest, too, that my right hon. Friend listens to those who have cared about this issue and campaigned on it for many years, including organisations such as the Maternity Alliance, New Ways to Work and the Women's TUC. They know the subject inside out and will advise and support the Government. However, I urge my right hon. Friend not to take any notice of employers who fail to recognise that the world has changed. They want to employ women, and their businesses depend on women, but they refuse to recognise that their work force has changed and their work patterns must also change.
Secondly, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider carefully the experience of the United States of America in introducing family leave. In 1993, the first piece of legislation that President Clinton signed on taking office was the Family and Medical Leave Act. Before its introduction, it was controversial, and business had grave concerns that it might affect competitiveness. Instead of legislating and leaving everyone to get on with it, the American Government set up a family and medical leave commission to monitor how the new law was working, to give out information to spread good practice, and to report back to Congress two years later. In 1996, the commission reported to Congress that the Act had had no harmful effects on competitiveness but had had a beneficial effect on families.
Thirdly, I ask the Government to consider paying for family leave, at least for low-income families. If we do not pay for family leave for lone mothers, the danger is that they will leave their jobs and go back on to income support when their families need them. The importance of the new deal for lone parents is to help mothers off benefit and into work, but we need to help them stay there and to discharge their responsibilities to their children. If we do not pay for family leave for low-income families, they might feel that they cannot afford to take it—but low-income families need fathers' and mothers' time just like other families. Alternatively, parents may take family leave but face reduced income when the children are young and need that income most.
Welfare to work, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit are all policies designed to improve the income of working families with young children. Sir Donald Acheson's report on public health, which will be published tomorrow, will identify the need to ensure the highest possible income for families with young children. I suggest that we pay for family leave, or at least some of it, as a tax credit for families on low incomes who are already eligible for the working families tax credit.

Mr. Terry Rooney: My right hon. Friend knows of my deep personal interest in this subject. Does she agree that it would be consistent with the child

care allowance in the working families tax credit to make a payment to those who want to stay in work, as well as those entering work?

Ms Harman: A tax credit for family leave would sit well with the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) for his long-standing campaign on the issue, which arose—I hope he will not mind my telling the House—from the fact that his father asked for time off work when his wife was having a child. He was not allowed time off, but took it anyway to care for his children: he was then sacked and was unemployed for two years. The law remains the same to this day, and that is why it is right to change it in legislation that will be introduced under the Queen's speech.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady's speech. Before she leaves the impression that all employers are ogres and all employees are wonderful people, may I pray in aid a great supporter of the Labour party, Carmen Calill? She was a rampaging feminist in her younger years and became the editor of Virago and then HarperCollins. She once described to me the almost impossible situation she faced in employing many women. She had to let them go from key roles for long periods and could not replace them, because she had to keep their jobs open. The right hon. Lady extols the virtues of more legislation that would restrict employers, but can she explain how she expects employers to cope with the practical aspects of all those wonderful ideas?

Ms Harman: The practical implementation should follow extensive consultation with employers, including those who have implemented family-friendly employment for years. We should draw on the experience of the Americans, who went from no family leave to full family leave with no effects on competitiveness.
Fourthly, I suggest that the Government should ensure that time off work is available for those caring for young children and also for those caring for elderly or disabled relatives, as in the United States. As our population ages, more and more people—mostly women, but a growing number of men—try to combine paid work with their caring responsibilities. We want and need them to be able to do both. The Government are taking a radical and modernising step by introducing for the first time a legal right to family leave. I warmly congratulate them.

Mr. John Major: I can tell the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that returning to the Back Benches has its charms. I speak with some experience, and I hope that she also learns to love the experience. Back Benchers need not be unthinking lobby fodder, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will join the army of Back Benchers who have a proper role to play in ensuring that the Executive always reflects parliamentary opinion first and foremost.
Let me say at the outset that I approve of some of the policies that the Government have followed in the past 18 months and propose to introduce. That is not surprising, as some of them were policies that I followed. Others are similar to policies that I was following, but have been redesigned a little.
Let us ease aside from the belief that there is a sharp difference on every issue between the Government and the Opposition parties. That is not so. It is the Opposition's role to concentrate on the points on which we disagree, but there are some areas of agreement. The fact that there is agreement on some issues is one of the strengths of this parliamentary system.
This is in many ways a rather unusual Queen's Speech, particularly for the second year of a Parliament, in that its theme is difficult to discern. The Secretary of State bravely suggested that it was modernisation and fairness, and who could disagree with the principle of the right sort of modernisation and fairness? Nobody asks for the reverse. However, we must consider whether the Queen's Speech contains the hard-backed policies that will achieve that in an advantageous way. That is a point with which many Opposition Members might disagree.
The Secretary of State made some intriguing remarks, often off script and occasionally in response to interventions, either proper or from a sedentary position. He said one or two things with which I agree strongly. He spoke about collective rights within the European Union, but said that there are different practices in some countries. He clearly meant the different historical, industrial and commercial practices, many of which we find in the United Kingdom. Unless I misheard him, he spoke warmly of the principle of subsidiarity, which I had the privilege of enshrining in the Maastricht treaty some years ago. I strongly agree with him about that.
However, the Secretary of State touched on weaker ground, on which I notice that he did not take an intervention. Although I agree with the principle of subsidiarity and with the fact that we are different in some respects, the fact that the Prime Minister agreed to the social chapter in Amsterdam shows clearly that almost everything in the social chapter is determined by qualified majority voting, not by unanimity.
That means that, even though the Secretary of State may oppose it, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that legislation will be passed in the European Union that our Government would not pass for the reasons that the Secretary of State set out, but that he would not be able to block. It is the practice in other European countries, it is enshrined in the broad principles of the social chapter, and it will be decided by qualified majority voting.

Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: Let me make some more progress.
I welcome the Secretary of State for Education and Employment back to the House. I am sure that he made the right decision to return. I hope that when, the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate, he will explain how the Government propose to protect Britain from legislation of which they do not approve, but which would otherwise be imposed on us by qualified majority voting under the agreement made by the Prime Minister in Amsterdam.

Mr. Mandelson: If he does not mind my saying so, the right hon. Gentleman is being very defeatist. Surely, when one is in the councils of Europe, it is possible to use the power of persuasion to convert people to one's point of view. That is much more effective than standing on the

sidelines bellowing at people through a megaphone. For example, over the past 18 months, we have achieved a darn sight more on the ban on British beef by having our arguments listened to and through the power of persuasion than the right hon. Gentleman's party achieved on most issues during 18 years in office.

Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman's idea of political persuasion is to bend someone's arm behind their back.
If what the Secretary of State said is true, perhaps he can explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a member of the Committee considering the euro. Despite the fact that sterling is one of the great currencies of Europe and that our European colleagues want sterling to enter at some stage—as do the Government—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not welcome at the meetings. The Government still say that persuasion works. In reality, one can persuade from time to time. I persuaded our European partners to give us the opt-out on a single currency that the Government now use. I note that I received no acknowledgement of, or gratitude for, that. Of course, it is possible to persuade sometimes, but often it is not.
The Secretary of State spoke earlier about not accepting legislation that we do not wish to accept. I remind him that he has signed up to an agreement under which he may not be able to prevent damaging legislation.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I should like to make some progress.
The Secretary of State spoke about convergence and the euro. Of course, what he said is right. Of course, it must not be artificial. He gave the impression that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who asked a question, was talking about artificiality. Europe has spent the past few years seeking to converge the real elements of its economy. Many in Europe have done so. They have taken significant decisions on public expenditure and taxation in order to seek convergence.
The right hon. Gentleman did not deal—the Government will have to deal with this one day—with how we are to avoid the convergence of taxation, if we are to proceed with the euro. The Chancellor says that he will not accept the convergence of taxation, and I agree with him. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Chancellor on the question of not accepting the convergence of taxation, and throwing away the advantages of a relatively low-tax United Kingdom economy, because that is one of the reasons for the inward investment and the relative prosperity that we have gained over other countries in recent years. However, we need to know exactly what the Government intend to say about that. I understand the difficulties, but the Government will need to be clear soon.
The Secretary of State said, intriguingly, that we shall join the euro when it is in our interests to do so. That seemed familiar to me. I seem to remember hearing that somewhere before. In fact, I seem to remember uttering that expression. It was about the time when the present Prime Minister was accusing me of not being clear about


whether we would join the euro. However, if he will forgive me putting it this way, I notice that the Prime Minister, who accused me of sitting on the fence, is now seated squarely on the adjacent spike. That is a wise place for him to be, but he might acknowledge—it would make for a more graceful occasion if he did—that the policy that he criticised before was a wise one that he, equally wisely, is following now.
Let me deal with something that underlies all the ambitions of the Government and the Opposition for the well-being of this country. Many of the artificial arguments that we have across the Chamber are arguments not about ends but about means. For example, the big argument about the social chapter is not about whether workers should have better rights. The Government believe that the social chapter is right and that it enshrines more rights for workers. Our argument is not that we do not wish workers to have rights, but that we feel that, as a result of the social chapter, other workers may not get jobs that they should have. Let us deal with the reality of the substantive debate between us. There is no disagreement on objectives.
The economy is crucial to whether those objectives can be met. So much depends upon that. A wise former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that money is the root of all progress. Given how often the £40 billion is mentioned, we can see that that is undoubtedly the case.
What is the Chancellor's forecast for the next three years? In 1999, it is 1 to 1.5 per cent., a year later it is 2.25 to 2.75 per cent. and a year after that, by a remarkable geometric progression, it is 2.75 to 3.25 per cent. Forecasting is very difficult. Let us make it clear that the Chancellor does not do the forecasts personally. It is very difficult for the statisticians who do the forecasts and, to be frank, they are more often wrong than right, both in the Treasury and almost everywhere else. I am sure that, on this occasion, the forecasts presented by the Chancellor—I do not know whether they were the forecasts given to him—are wrong. If that is so, there are difficulties ahead for a wide range of policies to which the Government are committed.
I suspect that the Prime Minister is less certain than the Chancellor about the forecasts. The Prime Minister's speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet was very different in tone from the Chancellor's statement to the House. The difference was striking. The Chancellor was cocky, confident and certain of his forecasts and the Prime Minister was warning us of difficult times. I believe that the Prime Minister was wiser to be cautious than the Chancellor was to be confident.
We are told regularly that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are two souls in the same political body. We are usually told that when they have just disagreed, when their spin doctors have just disagreed or when they have contradicted one another. We are told that they work together, and I am sure that they do so, if only to keep a close eye on what each other is doing.
The Chancellor's forecasts are crucial, so let us consider them. I have made the point that forecasts may be wrong, but the increasing trend of view among businesses and others who have made later forecasts is that we shall not have growth of between 1 and 1.5 per cent. next year. Growth will be substantially below

1 per cent., perhaps at 0.5 per cent. or conceivably even lower, although I doubt that we shall go into recession, except perhaps technically and briefly.
In the second year, the Chancellor forecasts growth of 2.25 to 2.75 per cent. I can only assume that, as part of the new deal's job creation programme, Mary Poppins has become a Treasury forecaster, and that, for year 3, she has been replaced by Hans Christian Andersen with the fairy-tale proposition that we shall have between 2.75 and 3.25 per cent. growth.
The forecasts defy logic. The rest of the world is dipping, and growth is being cut. Growth is being cut in our markets at a time when, although it has dipped a little, sterling is still strong and presenting difficulties in export markets. Sterling is strong and our markets are diminishing, but, as the world cuts its growth forecasts, we, remarkably, will grow at an accelerating rate year upon year. What has the Chancellor of the Exchequer been taking? What hallucinatory forecasts drift past him as he prepares to come before the House?
The truth about the economy is that it is slowing. The underlying economy is very strong. We must be in no doubt about that: we are not in deep difficulties. However, the economy is slowing for several reasons. Inflation is low, essentially because—although the Secretary of State will not wish to hear it—the previous Government took unpopular measures that the Government opposed when they were in opposition and that, for a time at least, have put inflation in repose. Inflation is never dead, but it is lying low for the time being. Interest rates will fall a little further, as they should because the economy is pretty slow and pretty flat. That is the good news.
The rest of the news is perhaps less good. Borrowing will grow, or taxes will rise, or there will be a combination of laxer borrowing and higher taxation. Growth will continue to fall. How far it will fall, we cannot be certain, but it will be way below the Chancellor's forecasts. It will fall for two reasons. The first is beyond the Chancellor's control. There is a slowdown around the world, and we cannot insulate ourselves against that. When markets slow down, we slow down. We cannot blame the Chancellor for what is happening around the world. Like all his predecessors, he must deal with that problem, but it is not his fault, except to the extent that we have limited influence for collective action through the G7.
However, there are also domestic mistakes. The Chancellor has made a series of mistakes, such as the 17 tax rises, many of which were mean-spirited. The tax rises on pensions, on investment and on savings were unwise from the point of view of the economy. Fiscally, they were good for the Treasury, but they were bad for the real economy of which the Secretary of State spoke earlier.
There will be a price to pay for those tax rises. The best that the Chancellor can hope for is that the Government forecasts will be proved foolish over a long period. The worst that may face him is that there will be a shock somewhere else in the world. It may be China devaluing, or the yen sinking further, or—heaven forbid—another collapse of some sort in south-east Asia, or something unexpected of which none of us has thought. One more such item will mean a significant further slowing of the world economy, and the Chancellor cannot protect us


from that. Yet he left no leeway a few weeks ago in the confident forecasts of growth and expenditure that he led the House to expect.

Yvette Cooper: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government should have sustained the £28 billion deficit with which his Government left us, or should we have continued to pursue the fiscal policies of his Government, which broke the golden rule every year and doubled the national debt?

Mr. Major: The hon. Lady is relatively new to the House, but I must say to her, "Come off it." Does she seriously think that the £20 billion that was boasted in the Queen's Speech to have come off the deficit suddenly and miraculously appeared on 2 May 1997? Was that the result of the delayed impact of corporation tax coming in as a result of policies put in place by the previous Government, and of the profits yielded by those policies? Of course it was the latter. There are lags in yield, and if the hon. Lady does not understand that, I hope that others do. It was ludicrous to claim credit in the Gracious Speech for £20 billion off the fiscal deficit in the first year.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is an old hand who has been in Workington since before the flood. He knows that the hon. Lady is talking nonsense, and I know that he will talk nonsense, too, so I shall let him do so later and will get on with my speech now.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Major: Oh, all right then.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It seems that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) disagrees with the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). On 10 November, he said:
Yes, we got it wrong in the early 1990s … Yes, we have apologised."—[0fficial Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 148.]
The right hon. Member for Wokingham is always dissociating himself from the policies of his former Prime Minister. How does the right hon. Member for Huntingdon feel about being disowned time and time again?

Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was actually talking about the deficit over the previous year, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) does, indeed, often remind me of my mistakes.
The Chancellor cannot run the economy on the slogan that he has used during the past few months. He says there will be an end to short-termism. Of course we want that, but it is odd that the Chancellor who wants to end short-termism should, in his very first Budget, have made an attack on investment with taxation. That is a very odd way to end short-termism. Perhaps it will surprise the Chancellor to hear that short-termism ended in the 1980s with the supply side changes that he opposed. It ended in

the 1990s with our painful efforts—which he by and large opposed—to get inflation down. Short-termism ended then when politically unpopular decisions were taken to put the economy on an even keel. Whenever he is cornered, the Chancellor recites a mantra. He says, "We will end boom and bust." It is at least half true—he is ending the boom. We must hope that he does not lead us into bust too soon.
I want to touch on one glaring omission from the Queen's Speech. I do not mean the lack of an integrated transport policy, which has so embarrassed the Deputy Prime Minister, although I hope that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed his lunch today when he had the privilege of presenting the parliamentarian of the year award to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). It is not often that a corpse meets his assassin of the day before in order to present him with an award for the assassination. I hope that it was an enjoyable occasion, and I am very sorry that I missed it. I can see that the Secretary of State is very sorry that he missed it as well.

Mr. Mandelson: indicated assent.

Mr. Major: It must have been a remarkable occasion.
I do not want to talk about that omission from the Queen's Speech, or even about the freedom of information Bill, which has returned to the political womb, to re-emerge at some later stage. Instead, I refer to something that worries the Prime Minister as well as myself. The Prime Minister may be surprised to learn that we share a similar view, and that I am prepared to join him, but I judge him on what he has said recently rather than on his policies. Soon, we shall have a Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh, with tax-raising powers. The House knows that I think that that is a mistake, but that argument is past. We must deal with the reality that there will be an election next summer, followed by an Assembly.
The House will have, at some stage, to deal with problems consequential on the setting up of that Assembly. The Queen's Speech contains a range of constitutional measures that will cause future problems, although, in the interests of brevity, I shall not list those problems. However, there was nothing to deal with one problem which, if it is honest with itself, the House knows to have been created by the establishment of the Scottish Assembly.
The Scottish Parliament will put the Union at risk unless we are careful and skilful. When I warned of that some time ago, up to and during the election, I was much scoffed at by Labour Members and some members of Opposition parties, but the Prime Minister now accepts the danger, or there would be no reason for him to make speeches about our having a battle for Britain, oblivious though he may be to the fact that the only reason that we are having to fight that battle is the policy that he put in place and the nature of the Scottish Assembly that he has established.
The Government were warned, and they scoffed and jeered at the warnings. The truth is now there to haunt them, but that is history. I shall not worry too much about the haunting of the Prime Minister and those on the Treasury Bench. What is more important is this: where is the action to deal with the problem and where are the


policies to encourage the newly established Scottish Assembly not to bid for independence and to realise that it would do better to stay joined at the hip as part of the United Kingdom in the Union that has served all of the United Kingdom so well for nearly 300 years?
Where are the policies to cope with what every hon. Member knows in his or her heart is the manifest absurdity of Scottish Members with no control over health, education and transport in their constituencies voting down here on health, transport and education in Hartlepool, Huntingdon, Peckham and elsewhere? We know that that is a problem and that it will cause conflict. Since we realise that, why on earth, given the majority that the Government have, do they not consider that constitutional problem before it becomes a running sore between this House and the Edinburgh Assembly?
The Secretary of State for Scotland has been saying for years that Scotland should have a Parliament. Now, he is saying in lectures that England should not have one. I am a Unionist and I agree with the Secretary of State that I do not want a separate English Parliament, although I observe the manifest absurdity of that right hon. Gentleman saying so. The difference between him and me is that I told the Scots of that problem before and during the general election, while he and his colleagues told them what was convenient for the Labour party during the election, with no concern for or understanding of the problem that would be created after it.
This is the Government's mess and it will not go away. They have created it and they need to correct the imbalance that they have created—through, not an English Parliament, but an English dimension to a United Kingdom Parliament—before it is too late and it causes too much bitterness. That is urgent. They should begin to discuss with my right hon. Friends how we might deal with that problem. I do not want my party to stand to one side and scoff at and mock the troubles that the Government are facing, because there are bigger issues at stake the constitutional position of the United Kingdom.
If Scotland were to break away—I do not expect that to be imminent, but it might do so in five or 10 years—will the Secretary of State say whether we would be stronger or weaker in Europe to stand up for our position there? He knows that we would be weaker. Would we be more or less likely to retain our seat on the Security Council? He knows that we would be less likely to do so. Would we be likely to retain our position in the Group of Seven, and would we have enhanced or lesser power if our country were seen to be breaking up? He knows that it would be lesser power.
At this stage in this Parliament, this year, with the Government's majority and our support, they could have dealt with that constitutional issue, that problem, which exists now. Instead, they have introduced a range of constitutional tinkering, which will create fresh problems, which will emerge if they get their way on other constitutional issues in Parliament during the rest of this Session. I bitterly regret the fact that the Government have chosen not to examine and deal with that issue before a sore becomes an ailment that is not readily curable.
Today, our main subjects are trade and industry and education and employment. We are offered a consultation document on teaching—another smack of firm

consultation—which may well be worth while, but sounds like a fig leaf. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will have more to say about that later. Given the way in which the question has been framed and the ballot arranged, we can look forward to what looks to be a vindictive, slow destruction of grammar schools without the Government having the courage to take direct abolition through the House. Yet again, part of the famous £40 billion will be reannounced—this time to repair schools, something that will be welcome if it turns out to be there and actually happens. Frankly, we have also had absurd policies for industry which will add to—

Mr. Blunkett: I am sorry to intrude on what is undoubtedly an excellent speech, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman implied that the Government were lying by suggesting that we were investing the resources that have been announced today in capital over the next three years. Given the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I should like him to clarify what he meant by that.

Mr. Major: Of course I was not suggesting that the Government were lying. I meant that the £40 billion has been announced before, and that whether it will be there depends on the performance of the economy. I have spent much of my speech arguing that that performance may not be as good as the Government had supposed in their estimates, and that it may not yield the resources that they therefore expect. At that stage, the Government will have to cut expenditure, increase borrowing, raise taxes or do something else. My remark was made in that spirit. I was not suggesting that the Government were engaged in an outright deception—heaven forfend that such a thing should happen.
The policies for industry are absurd. They will add to regulation and to costs and increase the powers of trade unions in a way which will make neither them nor the employers happy—a remarkable double whammy—

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Mr. Major: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall not give way.
The Government have been fortunate so far. They have had the longest honeymoon in recorded history. They inherited a strong economy and they are now weakening it; they inherited falling unemployment—sadly, I fear that that is soon to increase—and a growing economy. Partly, but only partly, as a result of their measures, the economy is beginning to slow down. Despite the brilliance of the hype—it has been brilliant hype—it is a miserable performance, and the easy time for the Government is coming to an end. They are about to begin to collide with reality. I see the look of shock crossing the face of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the belief that reality might have the impertinence to come up and tap him on the shoulder. Given the way in which the world economy is going, it may not merely tap him—unless he is very lucky, it will grip him by the throat.
The Government are about to come face to face with reality and, unless they are very fortunate or skilful, they will find that the promises that they have set out will not be easily met. I fear that they will find that many of those policies will not operate as they had hoped either


for them—something with which I do not much concern myself—or for the country as a whole, something with which I do concern myself. They need to look afresh both at their economic prospects as they frame policies, for no one wants promises that turn out to be impossible to meet, and, equally importantly, they must re-examine yet again and with care the option of removing—before it becomes too serious—the constitutional Scottish problem that will arise. In that, I hope that they will both seek and receive the assistance of the Opposition.

Mr. Roger Berry: I want to deal with one proposal in the Queen's Speech that has not attracted much attention so far, but which will affect the lives of millions of citizens. Interestingly, it is a proposal that has already been supported by the other place several times, and one that has the support of the Leader of the Opposition, as I was surprised to discover yesterday. I am referring to the Government's proposal to legislate to set up a disability rights commission. Clearly that Bill will go a long way with support from the other place and the Leader of the Opposition, and it deserves to do so.
The House should warmly welcome the proposal, which would go a long way to implement the Government's commitment to ensure comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. It will certainly be warmly welcomed by the 8 million disabled people who face discrimination in this country—people who are denied their basic rights to work, to learn, to travel, and even to vote.
It is no exaggeration, therefore, to say that yesterday was an historic day for disabled people, their organisations and their supporters. For the first time, disabled people are to have a statutory body to fight their corner. I am pleased that the Equal Opportunities Commission has been doing its work for many years, and we also have the Commission for Racial Equality. Northern Ireland has the Fair Employment Commission. But we in this country are yet to have a commission to ensure that disabled people are guaranteed their rights.
The disability rights commission should be welcomed primarily because disabled people will have a statutory body to ensure that they have redress if they are treated unfairly or unreasonably in the eyes of the law, but it will also be of great assistance to those who are required to abide by the law. There will be detailed advice for employers and service providers on how to make any necessary changes so that they can benefit from the skills of disabled people and from their custom.
The Government should also be warmly congratulated on the way they consulted before introducing the proposal to set up the disability rights commission. They have accepted the recommendations of the disability rights task force almost to the letter. This is one of those rare occasions on which a Government have consulted on a proposal and brought people together—in this case not only disabled people, but employers, local government, trade unions, the public sector and the private sector, under the aegis of the task force—to prepare a package based on consensus that they will then implement.
In that context, I pay tribute to the Minister for Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who, as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, set up the task force and

produced the White Paper, which was published in July. His commitment to civil rights for disabled people—over many years and from both sides of the House—deserves our recognition.
Let us not forget that disabled people and their organisations have campaigned for comprehensive civil rights for many years, and that hon. Members campaigned for many years in support of them. The first civil rights Bill, which was introduced as a private Member's Bill by my noble Friend Lord Ashley in 1983, provided for a commission. Since then, a commission has been considered an integral part of achieving civil rights by all hon. Members who have sought to legislate through a private Member's Bill, particularly my noble Friend Lord Morris and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As secretary of the all-party disablement group, I also acknowledge that hon. Members of all political parties have been part of that campaign.
I welcome the fact that the Conservative Opposition now support a disability rights commission. That was not always the case, of course; indeed, until four years ago, the then Conservative Government were totally opposed to legislation of any kind to secure equal rights for disabled people, and were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to stop such legislation.
That said, I am usually prepared to let bygones be bygones. In politics, there is not much mileage in bearing grudges, and I try not to do it. I would not have said anything else about the past if it had not been for the remarks in yesterday's debate by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition.
I had to check Hansard this morning, because I could not believe that I had heard the right hon. Gentleman say:
We will support the creation of a disability rights commission … I hope that the commission will ensure that the … disability rights legislation, which I took through the House, is properly enforced".—[Official Report, 24 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 16–17.]
I am occasionally surprised at comments made in this Chamber—we all are. Some of us are surprised most of the time, but when I heard those words, I could scarcely contain myself. I asked myself whether this could possibly be the same Member of Parliament who, as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in the previous Administration, vehemently opposed a disability rights commission on every occasion. With regret, I have to inform the House that the right hon. Gentleman is that same gentleman.
I spent an enjoyable couple of hours this morning going through the Official Report of the debates on Second Reading, in Standing Committee and on Report for the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There is a mountain of quotations from the right hon. Gentleman fundamentally opposing the notion of a disability rights commission. I shall simply select one at random—there are so many, it is difficult to know where to begin.
In Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The assumption that there has to be a commission to tackle the problems that we know exist is flawed.
He went on:
The issue of a commission has become an article of faith, but I ask the Committee and people outside Parliament to understand that there is more than one way to approach the problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 February 1995; c. 389–390.]


The then Government's approach to the problem was to set up not a disability rights commission, but the National Disability Council, whose remit was to advise the Government.
It was therefore particularly unfortunate for the previous Administration that the NDC annual report—which was produced after not two or three years of operation, but one—recommended that a disability rights commission be set up. It virtually said, "Please abolish us, and set up a commission."
David Grayson, the admirable chair of that organisation, said in his foreword:
there should be a body with the specific capacity to help disabled people to enforce their rights".
The NDC said that because it recognised after one year's work that there was not such a body, and that the NDC itself certainly was not a body of that sort. The NDC called on the Government to attach "an early priority" to legislating for comprehensive and enforceable civil rights.
I warmly welcome the commitment in the Queen's Speech to set up a disability rights commission. The White Paper published in July made a number of points; I shall not take up the House's time by repeating them all, but I shall echo a few, which are absolutely essential to the efficient functioning of the disability rights commission.
The commission's mission must be to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. That, above all, is its prime task. It should advise the Government on the legislation that is necessary to move from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to full, comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. In that sense, the disability rights commission will be an extremely important vehicle in assisting the Government to fulfil the final part of their commitment.
The commission should encourage good practice by employers and by service providers, because this is not simply a matter of legislation and of threatening to take people to court.
Everybody knows that the most effective anti-discrimination legislation is legislation that is rarely used in the sense of taking people to a tribunal or to court. If the legislation and the institutions that back it up are good enough, conciliation and advice can deal with the problems. Naturally, there must be a final right to prosecute if the law is broken, but it is extremely important that one of the key objectives of the disability rights commission should be to encourage good practice among employers and service providers, and to make arrangements for conciliation. It should also be able to assist individuals to enforce their rights not only under the Disability Discrimination Act but under the Human Rights Act 1998.
All that requires adequate funding. I am not jumping on to my usual hobby horse. That is the recommendation of the National Disability Council, which points out that sufficient resources must exist if the commission is to do its job properly. It is a crucial issue. The Equal Opportunities Commission has a budget of some £7 million a year, and the Commission for Racial Equality has a budget of some £11 million a year. The disability rights commission will require more than the CRE's £11 million if it is to fulfil its responsibilities.
Let us not forget that, like the CRE, the commission will undertake awareness-raising activities, but those will include awareness of impairments, barriers to disabled people's participation and how to overcome them, and the provisions of relevant legislation. It will have to ensure full accessibility to information, of advocacy and support. It will have to advise on reasonable adjustment, as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act. It will also have to support individuals who take cases to court under the Human Rights Act. Those are substantial duties, and the new commission's funding must be adequate to reflect them.
The establishment of the commission will be a major step towards comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. I hope that, at an early date, it will assist in achieving three other objectives that are part of that agenda: first, small firms should not be exempt from civil rights legislation; secondly, we should define disability to include all those who experience disability discrimination; and, thirdly, we should include transport and education within the framework of anti-discrimination legislation. We have none of those provisions at present.
I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members welcome the proposal. It is a significant step towards implementing the Government's commitment to securing comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. It should be welcomed with enthusiasm: it is long overdue.

Mr. David Chidgey: I shall limit my remarks, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
Governments are often criticised for making pronouncements that are long on rhetoric but short on content. The Queen's Speech is a departure from that norm—it is pretty short on rhetoric, but even shorter on policies that will be successful in tackling trade and industry problems. It makes it clear that the
Government will continue with economic policies designed to build stability for the long term",
and that the Government's central economic objectives are
high and stable levels of economic growth and employment".
Nobody would disagree with those laudable aims, but what and where are the policies designed to achieve them?
The latest trade figures show that we are now running a trade deficit of £2.5 billion, the largest ever. Our trade gap with both our European Union partners and non-EU nations is widening, and it has little to do with the Asian crisis. Where are the proposals to support British industry and reduce bureaucracy in business? Where are the proposals to maintain inward investment? Although Britain has done incredibly well in attracting inward investment, it is important to continue to attract it.
Most importantly, where are the proposals to provide investment in human capital? We have heard a great deal this afternoon, particularly from the Secretary of State, about the importance of a knowledge-based economy. I could not agree more, but where is the investment in human resources to provide for that? I find such proposals somewhat wanting.
Our manufacturing industry is at its lowest ebb, yet the Secretary of State and the Chancellor complacently stick to the line that the economy is not heading for recession. Nobody said it was, but industry certainly is. Just seven


days ago, a Treasury survey of 44 independent economic forecasters predicted recession in the manufacturing industry next year. While the Chancellor continues to claim that manufacturing industry will avoid recession next year, the Treasury survey shows that an average drop of 1.1 per cent. in manufacturing output is expected. However, the Treasury still claims that growth in industry will be plus or minus 0.25 per cent.—in other words, zero.
That variance between forecasters and the Treasury is unprecedented, and it is time that the Government faced up to the severe problems confronting industry—particularly the burden of high interest rates and of an unstable and uncompetitive exchange rate. Unless the Government act, as many as 400,000 manufacturing jobs could be lost in the next two years because of the recession in manufacturing industry.
It simply not acceptable for the Government to wash their hands of the crisis in manufacturing and blame it on the collapse of Asian economies and the global market. For a start, that is simply not true. Today's trade figures reveal that exports to the European Union from this country are collapsing. That has nothing remotely to do with Asia. We trade more with the Netherlands than with the whole of south-east Asia, Latin America and Russia put together.
The Government's pre-Budget report clearly showed that the UK's principal export markets are growing. Tables A2 and A5 in the report show growth of 7 per cent., yet UK exports sales to our key markets are growing by only 4 per cent. That has nothing to do with the collapse of the Asian economies or stresses and strains on the global market, but is entirely down to a lack of action by the Government to make UK industry more competitive.
The Queen's Speech should have addressed two key issues: first, what will the Government do to ease the way for British business to compete in the global market; and, secondly, what will the Government do to ensure that our work force is equipped with the training and skills that are vital to a knowledge-based economy?
The Government are still prevaricating on Britain's entry into European monetary union. It would take just one simple declaration of interest and an indicative programme to make interest rates immediately fall and exchange rates stabilise, and industry would be revitalised at a stroke. The Prime Minister knows that. Indeed, he is on record as praising the call by more than 100 leading business people for a firmer commitment to join the single currency. He has presumably read what the chairman of Unilever said:
Business does not want to see Britain relegated to the status of a quaint offshore trading post, steadily marginalised from its main market".
That is how business thinks, but the Gracious Speech merely continues the line that we will join when it is in Britain's best interest. I asked the Secretary of State whether he could envisage a scenario in which joining would not be in Britain's best interest, and answer came there none.
The Queen's Speech tells us that there will be measures on competition and on investment in improving skills. Why are the Government not taking a lead on competition by introducing proposals to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom? How long must we wait? Unless the Post Office is given the freedom to invest

internationally and to operate commercially, it will lose its place in the global market. Time is fast running out. The forecasters tell us that, within the next two years, there will be no place in the global market for the Post Office.
If the Government intend to address competition, why have they increased taxes on business at twice the rate of the reductions that they so proudly proclaim? Why have they not made some effort to reduce regulations on business?
On 10 November 1998, at column 201 of Hansard, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry claimed that the previous Government had introduced 10,000 new regulations. There is a great danger of small and medium-sized enterprises being crippled by bureaucracy, yet the Government's vaunted deregulation unit attached to the Cabinet shows all the symptoms of becoming a farce. It was asked a few weeks ago how many deregulation measures have been introduced. The answer was, "We can't find any." It has been established for a year, and so far it cannot find any deregulation measures—not one.
The Government not only have failed to reduce regulation on business, but are intent on adding Euro-bureaucracy to the burden. Britain enjoys some of the lowest employment costs in Europe, which are, on average, about a third of those of most of our competitors. That helps to offset the disadvantages of low productivity. However, that will all change if the party of European socialists has its way.
Under the Government's presidency of the European Union last year, the document entitled "Economic Reform in the Framework of EMU"—commonly called the new European way—was drafted. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made the interesting point that, if we follow the philosophy set out in that document, we will be on the road to tax harmonisation.
Europe finds it anti-competitive that Britain has some of the lowest employment costs in the world. I cannot see the logic of following that philosophy, but, on Sunday, along with the other Finance Ministers of Europe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to that document—he may have signed it. Where does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stand if such a measure is at the heart of Government philosophy?
The Queen's Speech should have contained measures for improving skills. It is appalling that there are 7 million people in this country with no formal qualifications. Investment in vocational training is failing to deliver. National vocational qualifications are a good idea, and I support them. They measure skills that people have, as well as the knowledge they are gaining. However, the recent disturbing results show that there is a 40 per cent. drop-out rate at NVQ level 2, which is the threshold to gaining the higher technical skills our economy lacks.
The problem is that, although the Government recognise the distinction between investment and capital and revenue costs, they do not accept that expenditure on human resources and human capital is essential for a knowledge-based society. Instead, such expenditure is seen as a revenue cost, and is continually squeezed. We have inadequate resources for education and for training, yet that is the most important investment that this country can make. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) hopes to have the opportunity to deal with that issue.
The Queen's Speech does not contain the policies that manufacturing industry needs. It does not contain measures to free business from the strangulation of red tape. It does not do enough to provide investment to achieve the high skills we need for a knowledge-based society. We must go much further down that road before I can be convinced that the Queen's Speech addresses these issues.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being called to speak in the debate. I shall refer specifically to the Government's proposals on fairness at work. That should be no surprise, as I am a member of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union parliamentary group, and as a former senior lay official of the Fire Brigades Union, I would be expected to be interested in trade union law.
There has been much speculation about what will be in and what will be omitted from the forthcoming Bill on fairness at work, which is expected to begin to redress the imbalance created by the legislation introduced by Conservative Governments between 1979 and 1997. It is generally accepted that they moved employment legislation beyond fairness to create a clear bias which could be used to advantage unscrupulous employers.
The main thrust of our legislation will not present problems for reasonable companies that treat their staff with respect and dignity, but may cause difficulties for organisations that disregard their employees and do not consider that staff should be entitled to a view. Such organisations represent but a small minority of employers.
It is important to say that this legislation is not about giving power back to union barons, but about creating a framework of fairness for people in the workplace. The Prime Minister has said:
even after the changes we propose, Britain will have the most lightly regulated labour market of any leading economy in the world.
It is important to bear those words in mind when we consider the efforts that some employer organisations have made to dilute the proposals published in the White Paper, some of which had been agreed.
The Bill will deal with individual employee rights. It is only right that the upper limit on awards for unfair dismissal should be abolished. Contrary to the view of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I believe that reasonable compensation should be paid if an independent tribunal is persuaded that an individual has been deprived of his livelihood unfairly. The tribunal should decide how much compensation is appropriate. A £12,000 limit is potentially unreasonable and unfair. I am pleased that the Secretary of State nodded his agreement that such a provision will be in the Bill.
To allow employers to pressurise new staff to sign waiver clauses on unfair dismissal and on redundancy protection is wrong and should be outlawed. Employees are usually in a weak position when applying for work, and they can easily be persuaded to sign away basic legal rights when pressed by unscrupulous employers.
There seems to be general acceptance of the Government's proposals to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to one. I believe that

there is a strong case for all qualifying periods to be abolished. Workers pay tax and insurance, and are contractually bound from day one of employment. They should also be entitled to full employment protection from day one.
One aspect of the White Paper which did not attract enough attention was the promotion of family-friendly policies. It is a matter of some pride that our Government are proposing policies such as the extension of statutory maternity leave and the introduction of parental leave. Those changes will promote the family in a realistic and practical way. Those rights should be statutory, or we will disadvantage good employers who are keen to look after their staff.
On automatic union recognition, we should be looking for a procedure that is simple and less likely to cause tensions in the workplace. Many complicated formulae have been suggested: 50 per cent. plus one, which is the most straightforward; 50 per cent. plus one, plus 12 months' employment; 50 per cent. plus one, plus 12 months' employment. plus a ballot; 50 per cent. plus one, plus 12 months' employment, plus a ballot, plus individually signed forms requesting collective representation. Surely, if 50 per cent. plus one member of a work force are members of trade unions, that should indicate that the majority of staff seek representation, and recognition should therefore be automatic. Any other formula will only give employers who do not want to recognise trade unions in the first place legal loopholes to exploit, to delay and thus to frustrate.
Employers apparently accept that there should be a right to representation in disciplinary cases, but not in regard to grievances. That seems anomalous. The only reason would appear to be the fact that disciplinary action is initiated by the employer, whereas grievance proceedings are initiated by the employee. Extending trade union representation to grievance hearings is hardly radical, given that most workplaces surveyed recently had such procedures, while only a few did not allow individuals to be represented. Surely, if someone has a problem, the company involved will want it to be solved, and a trained trade union official is more likely to be able to assist in the process. Harassment at work—for example, bullying, racism or sexism—is a sensitive issue. Most employers want such matters to be dealt with through acknowledged procedures, by people who know what they are doing. Trained trade union representatives can help in such sensitive situations.
The Government intend to exclude a quarter of the working population from union recognition because they work in firms employing fewer than 20 people. If those employees have no access to trade union advice and grievance representation, that will have a negative impact on them.
As has been stated by Mr. John Monks, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress—I hope that we all share his view; certainly all Labour Members do—many of the proposed measures are designed to minimise disruption in the workplace. Fair, stable and orderly industrial relations are the goal, and the proposed fairness at work legislation will help to achieve it.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made great play of his concern about, and even approval of, "honest failure"


in the workplace. Having considered the measures proposed in the Queen's Speech—as well as those that the Labour party has already said it intends to produce—I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there will be much more failure in the business world because of the burdens that the Government are heaping on the business man and woman.
Let us be clear about one thing: businesses do not exist to provide social services. Social services result from the decisions of politicians, and politicians should be prepared to administer them at their own expense—at the expense of the taxpayer—rather than expecting proprietors of firms, especially small firms, to take on an added burden of work.
It should also be acknowledged that firms do not exist to promote happy families. A reasonable case could be made for the view that the Government have some interest in that, because of the social consequences that flow from unhappy families; nevertheless, it is not the purpose of a business man running a company, large or small. Businesses exist to make profits: only by doing so can they provide the jobs that we all want people to have, and pay their taxes. Ultimately, all the tax that Government receive comes from the profits of business and commerce. Firms can do what is required of them only by concentrating on running their business, rather than running Government social policies, family-friendly policies or trade union-friendly policies.

Charlotte Atkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman: No, I will not. I want to be brief, because others wish to speak.
The purpose of a business is to make profits, and to run its own affairs. I find it chilling that so much of the legislation proposed in the Queen's Speech takes us back to the past, giving trade unions much more power and authority in the workplace and meaning that taxation must inevitably increase to cope with, for example, the working time directive, increased maternity leave and increased holiday time. All that will add to the cost of running a business, and, most important, will add to the paperwork and intervention that the business community will have to administer.
For instance, Labour intends to introduce new family credit arrangements, which will mean much more administration for employers. Those arrangements will involve people earning about £39,000 a year—presumably, well over half the work force. Some large organisations may well cope, because they can put up more reserves from their profits.
According to the managing director of Fiat in the United Kingdom, although larger corporations can probably cope with the legislation, smaller firms are in "a very difficult position". He says that they are
minnows compared to union professionals",
who will be given much more power and authority in the workplace through the re-establishment of their right to form and operate trade unions, regardless of whether employers want that to happen.
We lived through all this in the 1970s, when there was chaos in the workplace. There were strikes of monumental proportions almost every other week, which were

extremely destructive of our economy. Only the Conservative Government's action in bringing some sense into that chaos produced the tranquillity that we now enjoy in the workplace and take for granted, but which will end as a result of the Government's proposals.
Two female Opposition Members found that quite amusing, but we currently live in a world in which we no longer experience major national strikes. Perhaps they do not recall those days, but I do. I ran a company then, and it was hell.

Charlotte Atkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman: I will, briefly.

Charlotte Atkins: Surely what has replaced the alleged abuse by trade unions is fear in the workplace. Would the hon. Lady condone the actions of one of my local textile firms, which requires, at 24 hours' notice, all staff to be available from 6 am until 10 or 11 pm? Will that not completely destroy family life?

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Lady makes a point that I took up earlier. The concept of what families do with themselves is not one for which employers are primarily responsible. If people are losing their jobs, in the hon. Lady's constituency or anywhere else, they must thank the Government for the policies that they are operating—in particular, the policies involving more regulation, which are making our businesses less competitive. Even companies such as Marks and Spencer, which has a reputation for compassion, tell us that they cannot compete in the circumstances that the Government have created.
The hon. Lady should ask her question of her own Front Benchers. The situation did not arise under the previous Government, for the simple reason that there was flexibility in the workplace. People could find jobs when an old industry died and new industries were established. That is the answer to unemployment, rather than trying to pressurise the employer to accept more responsibility.
Of all the measures that the Government are proposing, many of which will be extremely damaging to industry, I shall refer to two. One is the working time directive, under which—allegedly—individuals cannot be asked to work for more than 48 hours a week. Many Labour Members may say, "Jolly good job, too; don't let employers grind the faces of the poor." The directive will cause great problems for the Royal Mail, for example, which employs thousands of people, because its staff often work more than 48 hours a week in order to process an irregular source of material. Apparently, the post does not arrive evenly over a seven-day period. A 48-hour maximum may sound wonderful on paper, but it will interfere with the natural working patterns of large as well as small firms, the health service and other major industries.
The other item that should be mentioned in this debate is the Government proposal to remove the cap on compensation that is awarded in industrial tribunals. Such tribunals are one of the most discouraging elements of regulation with which small firms must cope. Not only do small business men have to take time off and pay for lawyers to put their case: they must find the compensation. In proposing to remove the cap, the Labour party could quite easily turn small firms into what the Secretary of State described as honest failures.
The cumulative effect of the new measures that the Government are proposing will add enormously to burdens on employers—not just small employers—and will inevitably contribute to an increase in unemployment. I am sure that Labour Members will do their very best to compensate people with higher welfare benefits, but that is not what people want. People want jobs in flourishing firms. If we are to encourage our small firms to grow and allow our large firms to survive in a competitive international market, we must stop imposing extra burdens on them.
Not surprisingly, all Labour Members who have spoken have welcomed the increasing burdens—whether they be an extension of trade union rights, an increase in time off, an extension of public holidays or a rise in the amount of compensation or damages that can be awarded against a business. Every one of those changes will make jobs more difficult to come by.
As for things such as the new deal, which Government Members trumpet whenever they get the opportunity, we all know that Government intervention—whether Conservative or Labour—in business activity invariably leads to a reduction in the amount of time, energy and money a firm is able to spend on producing a profit. Without that, without the creation of jobs and without encouraging small businesses and new entrepreneurs, jobs will be lost, which will not be replaced by artificial schemes that the Government concoct.
I realise that the Opposition think that all the measures are socially desirable, and even likely to improve—

Mr. David Jamieson (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): The hon. Lady is a member of the Opposition.

Mrs. Gorman: I accept the hon. Gentleman's reprimand of my slight confusion. It is very difficult to believe that the sensible measures that we introduced will not be continued under this Administration.
All the proposed measures will have a harmful effect in the workplace. People will not thank the Government for introducing regulations, which ostensibly will be sold to them as an improvement in protection, when they find that they no longer have jobs.

Dr. Brian Iddon: A major delegation from the textile industry lobbied Parliament today. Hundreds of people joined us from all over the country, and members of the industry and employees made speeches. That is not the first time that they have lobbied this Parliament; several months ago, representatives from the regions came down to London. Such action shows the anxiety felt in Britain's textile industry. I welcomed the Secretary of State's statement that a meeting had taken place yesterday with the employers. I hope that some good will come from it.
I did not, however, welcome the statement of the shadow Secretary of State, who seems, all of a sudden, to be pretending to show concern for the textile industry. Those of us who represent towns such as Bolton, where the textile industry is very strong and important to its economy, remember decline and decline during 18 years

of Tory government. Whenever Parliament was lobbied when the Tories were in power, all we ever heard was that they would not support lame ducks. When leading industries which are important to the economies of Italy, Germany, Japan and many other countries got themselves into temporary difficulty for whatever reason, why did their Governments deem it important to support them?
We know that the textile industry has been in decline for a long time. I shall address issues concerning that in a moment. I remind Opposition Members that, in the north-west, where the textile industry is so strong, their policies have resulted in being able to count Conservative Members for the region on only one hand. When I go to the "NorthWestminster" regional television studios, I find it humorous that those working there wonder which of the four or five Conservative Members to invite on the programme the following week. They might even consider dressing them up in different uniforms so that they look different when they appear on television.

Mr. Brady: I should like to put it on record that I am always happy to do that. Indeed, dressing up in different uniforms may even help the textile industry.

Dr. Iddon: I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), opposite whom I always appear to sit on the programme, dressed up in another costume. I wonder who he will appear as.
To be serious, the town of Bolton has a strong history in the textile movement. It was the cradle of the industrial revolution in textiles, where Crompton invented the mule, where Arkwright lived and worked for a while, and where the first mill to use the new industrial textile system—St. Helena—was built. I am pleased to say that it has been preserved, and still stands today.
If one visits a town such as Bolton today, one will not be able to count so many smoking chimneys. In fact, my constituent, Fred Dibnah, said to me in his garden the other day, "Will you tell the Minister for the Environment that I've done more good for the environment than he'll ever do in the whole of his time in Westminster?" That is probably true. From the west Pennine moors overlooking Bolton, one can see scores of textile mills. Thankfully, many of them still manufacture textiles, although others have switched to alternative industries. Such textile mills are valuable to our town and to Britain.
Let us look at the facts. Britain annually spends £25 billion on textiles. Although we export £8 billion of textiles, regrettably, we import £12 billion-worth. That £4 billion trade deficit could easily be balanced by demand in Britain. Those who lobbied the House today are asking, "Why on earth don't we start manufacturing the types of item that we import in huge volumes?" The question is very difficult to answer, whether we are talking about televisions, clothing, curtains, or anything else.
The fact is that, in the north-west, 62,000 jobs—12 per cent. of its manufacturing employment—rely on textiles. Across Britain, 370,000 employees are involved in the industry. However, many of those people are currently either facing redundancy or working short time. Let us consider the situation of a textile worker who, month after month, works one week on and then one week off. What happens when that worker goes to see the Department of


Social Security? I assure the House that, because of that work pattern, it is very difficult for that worker to gain approval for his or her application for the jobseeker's allowance. Many workers end up living for two weeks on the wages that they earn in one week, as it is almost impossible for them to get benefits out of the DSS.
Employees in the industry would be the first to admit that the strength of the pound has been a cause of their problems. However, they will also say—I have listened today to three major speeches by union leaders—that the strong pound has not been the primary problem. If that were so, why has the textile industry continued to decline over many years?
Employees in the industry tell us that lack of investment and a subsequent productivity decline has been one of the major causes of problems in the textile industry—and in all British industry. Europe's production record in the textile industry is 30 per cent. better than ours. That gap, if analysed, speaks volumes.
In 1964, when I left university, I considered going into the textile industry. I applied for a job, and was shown around a factory in Cheshire. I saw machinery that was built before the war. The people there admired the machinery and said, "Look what it's doing!" It was printing curtaining on both sides simultaneously, and producing an excellent product. However, even in 1964, the machine was not producing the product fast enough to stay ahead in the industry. Time and again, that has been the history of the United Kingdom textile industry. It has never thought about investing in state-of-the-art machinery, which is not only available but produced in the United Kingdom. We invent, produce and export such machinery, but we do not use it.
Some British industries use state-of-the-art machinery, but not nearly enough; it is about time that they—especially the textile industry—did. It is much easier, however, for textile managers to uproot machinery, export it, employ cheaper labour, and export those textiles back to the United Kingdom. That is criminal, because it makes our people suffer, many of whom have been made unemployed. Once upon a time, far more than 370,000 people were employed in the UK textile industry.
The condition of buildings is another factor in the industry's decline. We subsidise Japanese companies to come to various parts of the United Kingdom, and put them on green-field sites close to motorways to produce microchips. Why on earth do we allow our textile industry, which operates in a very competitive sector, to continue trying to produce in clapped-out mills which are often seven storeys high?
I live next to one such example, Falcon mill, in the Halliwell part of Bolton. It is very costly to take goods up seven floors and then to bring them back down again. Moreover, I dare anyone to try to negotiate round very large transporters in the narrow streets of the old industrial parts of Bolton. It is about time that the textile industry not only invested in new machinery but got itself into modern productive plant, which one can find across Italy and in many parts of Germany.
There has been little training and retraining in our textile industry, and I implore training and enterprise councils to pay more attention to that industry. If we are to invest in new plant and new machinery, we must have the new skills to operate the machinery, but TECs have

not paid sufficient attention to that problem. I welcome the establishment of the National Textiles Training Organisation, which has not yet received the recognition that it deserves.
Finally, Mr. Mayor—Mr. Deputy Speaker; I apologise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten where he is.

Dr. Iddon: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I thought that I was in the council chamber in Bolton. I apologise.
Britain can no longer produce bulk cotton or wool as raw materials. However—unlike other countries, at least so far—we are good at adding value to certain raw materials. We are very good at producing high-quality, high-value products that the rest of the world enjoys importing.
I should give a brief plug for the Bolton Institute, which provides a superb training centre for those working in the textile industry and is very good at developing fire-retardant textiles. Around the world, disasters on mass transport, and in hotels, cinemas and nightclubs, have demonstrated the desperate need for textiles and other building materials to be flame-retardant. The Bolton Institute has a very fine research group that is leading the world in inventing new ways of stopping fabrics—including everyday clothing—catching fire.
I compliment London Fashion Week, which has provided a showcase for British designers to show the world what they do. It is also helping London to catch on as one of the world's major fashion centres. Britain has some excellent schools for designers and for those working in all aspects of marketing. Sadly, however, many of our designers are still leaving Britain to live and work in France and Italy, among other places. We must not only train such skilled and innovative people but keep them here in Britain.
I do not write off the textile industry. Some very skilled people work in the industry, and some very fine inventions are waiting to be marketed around the world. I hope that the Government will accept the challenge, run with it and put British textiles back at the top around the world.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak—I hope briefly—in the debate on the Queen's Speech, which contains many measures that Plaid Cymru Members will want to support. Removal of the right of hereditary peers to vote in the other place is one such measure, and modernisation of local government is another.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on saying that he supports elected mayors, at least for parts of England. We also very much welcome the proposal to legislate on the Disability Rights Commission. Of course, there will be measures that we will want to scrutinise very carefully, especially those on welfare reform in so far as they impact on the disabled, the long-term sick and the frail elderly. We want to ensure that they are not penalised in any way.
The Queen's Speech heralded one of the major constitutional changes that this House has debated for generations, and probably this century. I listened with


some care to the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who passionately believes that those constitutional changes are wrong. Obviously, I approach the topic from a different point of view.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman holds his belief passionately, but I passionately believe that it is right that the people of Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland should be allowed the responsibility—as in the referendum—to consider ways to promote their own affairs within their own territories. If people vote for such a change, the House should encourage them to ensure that it is not only implemented, but actually works.
That is one reason why I want to mention a couple of facts that I believe will assist the Welsh Assembly to ensure that when it is established in six months time it will work well. All of us, whatever side of the debate we were on during the referendum in Wales, now want the Assembly to work. The primary responsibility of everyone elected to the body is to ensure that it works. Once the constitutional framework is in place, it must be allowed the flexibility to deal with various issues. For example, it needs the flexibility to develop innovative, practical and deliverable policies across all the policy areas that are devolved to it.
My great disappointment is that the Queen's Speech did not deal with those specific issues. I shall give two brief examples; the first is training. As hon. Members from both sides of the House have said, one major problem is the multiplicity of organisations that deal with training. They may not be responsible for training in the strategic sense, but are responsible for its delivery. There is a great deal of confusion in the minds of employers, trade unions, young people, those who wish to return to work, those who are in work and those who need to be upskilled about the appropriate organisation to approach.
One of the difficulties in Wales is that the training and enterprise councils have a patchy record. Some have done some good work, but others have fallen far short of the standards we expect. If the Assembly, not having legislative powers, is to deal with the problem, it needs the power to abolish TECs, if it so chooses, and to investigate other ways in which training can be delivered. Plaid Cymru wants the House to recognise that that flexibility is necessary. It is why we wanted the Queen's Speech to include a short Bill to allow the Welsh Assembly that freedom.
As tonight's debate covers training-related issues, I want the House to consider a number of ways in which we could improve training throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. First, we should establish a new type of audit of skill needs and training outcomes. We need to broaden the existing skill needs research and ensure that it is done consistently. We should also audit the sort of training people receive and its relevance to current market needs. One of the problems is that many young people feel either that the training is inappropriate for them or that it is not suitable for the needs of the market in which they must work and live.
Secondly, we must make full use of the enhanced Welsh Development Agency's market intelligence to forecast emerging skill needs. One problem with our existing training provision is that it often tries to deal with

current problems—with people currently out of work—rather than anticipating the skill needs of the new millennium.

Mr. Hayes: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, as he is making an extremely considered case. He referred to training for redundant or outdated skills. Does he agree that we need to build into the system training for adaptability—the ability to anticipate and accept change and then deal with it? That is certainly what employers say to me, and it is what I have found from my business experience. We need young people to be flexible and adaptable, and the sort of training that the hon. Gentleman wants can be built into the system.

Mr. Jones: I would not disagree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, it is not only employers who believe that that is necessary—although I accept that they do—but many trade unionists. Indeed, many young people believe that that is necessary, as do many of those currently involved in the delivery of inflexible training.
My final point is that training should be reintegrated into mainstream education, while allowing scope for specialist training, especially in niche markets or cutting-edge technology. There will be a need for specialist training provision. In what is becoming a very competitive area, it is necessary to integrate education and training rather better than we do at present. It is essential that we develop proposals and have a continuing programme of upskilling as part of the lifelong learning project.
Another area where the Assembly would need greater flexibility—although it is not the subject of tonight's debate—is health, which I wish to mention briefly. I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Royal College of Nursing parliamentary panel. The Assembly should be given the opportunity to be much more flexible in the way that it approaches health provision. I served on the Standing Committee of the Bill that set up NHS trusts in 1989. I have always believed that they were unnecessary, and a wasteful way of using national health resources, and that they created unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication of management.
The Bill that will result from the Queen's Speech needs—on the premise that it will begin to dismantle the internal market in health—to go substantially further. I want the Assembly to be given the power, if it so wishes, to dismantle and abolish NHS trusts. All that is proposed for the Assembly is the power, if it so wishes, to reconfigure trusts. Frankly, that is simply tinkering with the problem, and we need to go substantially further. The Assembly should have the flexibility to look at the whole of the health area, rather than being restricted by legislative difficulties.
When we examine the proposal to dismantle general practitioner fundholding and put local health groups in its place, we must ensure that that does not simply compound the problem through duplication of management. We should ensure that the reform does not create another tier of bureaucracy, one which does not enable us to deliver better health care in the long term. I am not saying that I am opposed to the idea, but I want to see how it is to be put into practice before giving it our firm backing.
Finally, I have two more brief points relating to health. First, I want more development of community hospitals, so that we have better integration between community hospitals, GP practices and community services. I believe that we can enhance the provision of health care in rural areas in particular, many of which are far away from district general hospitals. The provision of a more comprehensive community hospital service could bring immediate and substantial benefits.
My second and final point on health is that we are facing a massive problem with the recruitment of nurses and doctors. Time after time, under the previous Administration, we heard about an explosion in the number of managers in the health services and a reduction in the number of front-line nurses and doctors. The Royal College of Nursing has carried out an important survey, which shows that many of our hospitals are suffering recruitment problems. For example, Wales urgently needs at least 500 more nurses and 200 more midwives. Acute hospital trusts have vacancies that they cannot fill, not because they lack the resources, but because of insufficient nurses to fill the posts.
I ask the Government to give the National Assembly for Wales the flexibility to address the important matters of training and health. In so doing, they would give the Assembly a head start and ensure that, when it is established, it can do a proper job of work.

Ann Keen: I welcome all the Queen's Speech, but I shall focus my remarks on the fairness at work White Paper and legislation. I am vice-chair of the parliamentary trade union group and secretary to my own union group here—the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, or GMB. The House would therefore expect me to take an interest in trade union and employment issues.
In recent discussions with Paul Kenny, London regional secretary to the GMB, we talked about whether any changes had occurred since the White Paper was issued in July. He replied that it was obvious that companies now wanted to talk, having realised that legislation was coming through. They were asking the GMB what benefits it could bring to their company, and what sort of relationship they could expect with the unions if talks started. That marks a different approach by the trade unions than the one described by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is no longer in the Chamber. It is about co-operation, partnership and talking; it has already started and it is accelerating.
If that relationship is absent, and if open discussion does not occur, the result is the situation that we are on the eve of changing. An example can be seen in a company that I have mentioned in previous debates—Noons, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), in which constituents of mine are employed.
For a year up to the publication of the White Paper, the company had been engaged in a bitter battle with its work force. More than 500 people work in the company, which prepares Asian food for large supermarkets. The bitterness was entrenched and there was no talking—an old-style approach. The company had challenged the union representatives, there was intimidation and an extremely stressful environment. Now—tomorrow, I believe—an

agreement is to be signed. The parties are talking, and a positive future beckons for that company. Congratulations should go to both sides, because it is only when both sides agree to talks that good results can be achieved.
However, some of my other constituents, whom I met recently, are not so lucky. They work in the London casinos, which are not usually perceived as a bedrock of trade unionism. The casinos wage a war of words, and there are constant legal challenges, conflicts and recourse to industrial tribunals. The whole approach emphasises the differences. I want my Government to include in their fairness at work legislation a small and simple procedure to ensure that bad bosses have no room for manoeuvre—no room to use expensive delaying tactics and legal challenges when a ballot has taken place and democratic procedures followed. I hope that the Government will address that problem in the Bill.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Billericay is not here to hear my comments on family-friendly policies, because such policies are crucial to the future stability of the work force. If employers do not take care of the work force, how can they expect the loyalty and commitment from their employees on which many small businesses rely?
Like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), I want to talk about the health service from an employment perspective. I am a member of the Select Committee on Health, which is examining recruitment and retention of staff. We know that part of the problem with retention of staff relates to employment practices in the national health service.
The NHS is the largest employer in Europe. I hope that we now have a Government who will look at employment practices within the NHS, and that all staff, across the spectrum, will be entitled to family-friendly policies. That is not only a slogan. My profession is nursing, and I know of many occasions when part-time work has been asked for, but not given. The attitude encountered is that of the old school: "I work full time, I started my shift at 7.30 am, I did not have child care, so you can do it too." The problem is that staff are not doing it, and they are not staying. At last we have a Government who are working in partnership with the health service and saying that, if staff are to stay in a difficult job, they must be cared for.
When the chief executive of my local hospital, John de Braux of the West Middlesex University Hospital NHS trust, was asked recently about problems with the millennium bug, he said that, until the Labour Government were elected in 1997, there had been no investment in his hospital for more than 25 years, so he was happy with the equipment being up to date and able to cope with the millennium bug; however, he remained extremely concerned about staffing levels. The staff who were on duty that night or that week were not his sole concern; he also had to take into account their domestic circumstances.
Many nurses are married to ambulance workers, and ambulance workers sometimes marry fire officers. That can lead to complex problems of the type facing Mr. de Braux—who is to look after the children and so enable his staff to come on duty? I had not previously considered such problems, and I am telling as many of my colleagues as possible that it is something that they should examine in the context of their local area. Family-friendly policies are crucial.
Trade unions are now encouraged to work in partnership. The Government are right to promote such an approach, and they should be congratulated on doing so. However, we need to consider how to protect vulnerable people at work—people working in small units, subject to bad bosses who still look for loopholes that will enable them to avoid trade union recognition, and having to ensure that working conditions are adequate. So I urge the Government to look at the Bill to see whether procedures can operate in that way. It is the only way in which everyone can work together. Working together with the trade union movement is a positive approach to the next century.

Mr. Howard Flight: I should like to talk about trade, industry and employment from the point of view of someone responsible for a company employing some 450 people around the world. In the private sector, survival is about covering one's costs with a margin. Government action and legislation that add to those costs directly affect employees.
The Government's objectives, as expressed in the Queen's Speech, are to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment and to improve productivity through measures addressing competition, investment and entrepreneurship. We all share those objectives. Governments will always engage in propaganda and are entitled to do so, but I am concerned that the present Government believe that the policies that they have been pursuing and advocating will achieve their objectives. That is not the perception of those of us who live in the real world.
I shall concentrate on small business. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor had much to say about the Government's support for and encouragement of small business and entrepreneurs, although I have found no such references in the Queen's Speech. I perceive that the Government are doing grave damage to small business. They are listening to the chairmen in big business, who lead easy lives, rather than paying attention to the problems that their measures are causing small business. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has already made some of the points: I shall highlight one issue in particular.
During the summer—I think it was 10 September—a national insurance regulation was slipped through that imposes a massive tax on small business: the very business that the Chancellor said he was trying to encourage. When small companies are set up, entrepreneurs have shares in them. Now, if those businesses start to succeed and, under typical buy-out ratchets, the shares convert from one class to another, they face a substantial tax. Next year they will pay 12.2 per cent. in national insurance. Typically, 30 per cent. of the equity of a company may be affected. Although no one will have realised any money, some businesses will be hit by a massive tax of some 5 per cent. of their market value.
Still to come is a similar tax. When a business is floated to raise money, and the options that entrepreneurs may own need to be sold as part of the issue, there will be a tax of 12.2 per cent. on their value. How on earth can the Government say that such measures are supportive of entrepreneurs and small businesses?
I could cite other measures that will be equally damaging to small businesses. The working families tax credit, to which others have referred, will place a massive burden on under-resourced small businesses. Trade union negotiations represent yet another burden on businesses with 20 employees, as will the costs of extended maternity leave. Those and other very nice measures are desirable in principle, but will not keep a small business afloat. Small businesses cannot have people disappearing all the time.
In the financial services sector, quite unfairly in some cases, two measures will drive small independent financial intermediaries out of business. Many consider that a desirable objective. It will no longer be possible for many small businesses to compete and to comply adequately with rising regulation and bureaucracy.
First, I should like to know why the Queen's Speech contained no reference to the assertions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it all just hot air? Secondly, I should like the Government to do what the Chancellor claims they are doing, and not to damage small business.
The Government promise to improve levels of growth and employment. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who asked whether the Government were aware of what is going on. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is a conservative organisation that does not support any one political party, has warned that the United Kingdom will be lucky to achieve 0.8 per cent. growth next year and 1.5 per cent. growth in 2000. It warns that unemployment here will rise by 500,000 during 1999–2000, and that Government debt will be £36 billion over what has been forecast.
The Confederation of British Industry—a great friend of the Labour Government and not exactly an organ of the Opposition—has found the lowest level of business confidence in the United Kingdom since 1980. It predicts a sharp downturn, with considerable risk of outright recession. Consumer confidence is declining, and the level of consumer spending on credit cards is at its lowest since records began in 1993. New orders are at their lowest since 1991, and exports are at their weakest since records first began in 1977. Ours is hardly an economy that will achieve nice growth and in which employment will increase; it is likely to decrease substantially.
Others have referred to the economic background. The Government have introduced £40 billion-worth of extra costs and taxes on businesses, and plan to spend an extra £37 billion on social security. The extra taxes and regulatory costs on businesses are equivalent to £1,500 per job.
It is interesting to step back and look at continental Europe and America over the past 25 years. The US economy, which does not have overdone employment laws but an open labour market, has created some 40 million new jobs in the past 25 years. Continental Europe, which has restrictions and regulations—all in a good cause—towards which our Government are now moving with increasing enthusiasm, has lost 15 million jobs in the past 30 years. That is a pretty clear demonstration that increased employment costs that make it more difficult for small businesses price people out of work.

Mr. Chris Pond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, over the period to which he refers,


although net employment growth in the United Kingdom was 3 per cent.—it subsequently declined—it was 11 per cent. in Germany, 18 per cent. in Italy and 6 per cent. in France? On the whole, continental Europe did rather better than the United Kingdom, despite the deregulation policies that he supports.

Mr. Flight: With the greatest respect, I dispute the hon. Gentleman's figures. The other day, I saw with some astonishment that the number of people employed in Germany was 29 million out of a population of 80 million, whereas the number of people employed in this country was 27 million out of a population of nearly 60 million. I do not know from what base the hon. Gentleman calculates the growth rate in Germany, but more people are out of work in Germany than has been the case since before the second world war, whereas this country has the lowest unemployment rate of any economy in Europe.
I do not think that anyone in the business world is taken in by the fairness at work agenda. Fairness at work—a silly euphemism—is about settling the account with the trade unions and moving in line with European employment regulations, or, rather, job-destroying regulations. In horticulture, for example, which employs 30,000 people, the directive on part-time workers will destroy many jobs; the industry cannot afford to provide all those who, under prior arrangements, work fewer than 20 hours a week, with the contracts, terms and benefits of full-time employment. The directive will mean that large numbers of employees, especially females who want part-time employment, will lose their jobs.
The fairness at work Bill will enforce trade union recognition. As the CBI has pointed out, good employee relations should be built on trust, which is not best fostered when trade unions have imposed collective bargaining on an employer. On smaller industries, the CBI has said that the removal of the cap on unfair dismissal compensation will drive many people out of business. I know from direct experience of employers' concerns about the liabilities that may arise when someone is not suitable for a job. It can be two years before one knows whether an employee will fit in, especially in a highly skilled job, and there is now a major deterrent to employing anyone in such a post.
The Government have undergone a sudden conversion to the McKinsey report, although they do not refer to its main points on lower productivity. The fact that the many people in this country who have been employed in lower-paid jobs would be unemployed in continental Europe must be put into the equation if the productivity figures are to be comparable.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said, the state of the economy is partly the Government's fault and partly a result of what is happening in the rest of the world, but the Government's actions will lead to declining levels of growth and to 500,000 fewer people in employment. The third way—guff, as far as I can see—is a reversion to Labour's bad old ways. It is about higher taxes and higher Government spending, especially on social security. The Government are restoring the economically damaging trade union process that was shown not to work in the 1970s—the laws were often impossible to enforce.
Entrepreneurs are becoming demoralised, and are once again leaving the country in droves. The future will not be successful unless small companies and new businesses

prosper, as the American experience over the past 10 years has shown. I know from my own business that the only tangible result of the working time directive is the need for additional clerical staff to keep records of the hours that everyone works. What a waste of time. People who work in business are keen for their businesses to succeed, and are more than happy to work whatever hours are necessary, but they have to carry out unnecessary bureaucratic tasks to comply with yet more Government regulations.
I see nothing in the Queen's Speech that is positive for trade, industry or employment; indeed, I see a great deal that is negative. In the current global climate, much more should have been positive.

Mr. Chris Pond: Like other hon. Members, I want to speak about the fairness at work agenda and family-friendly employment policies, to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred. I want particularly to deal with parental or family leave, which I believe will have a significant impact on a large section of the population. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who made a powerful speech based on her long commitment to these issues—I am pleased to support much of what she said.
Family-friendly policies were the subject of light-hearted criticism from the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). The hon. Lady said that business did not exist to create happy families, but does she believe that people exist to create a healthy balance sheet in business? I suggest to her—I am sorry that she is no longer in the Chamber—that there should be a partnership between families and business; the most effective and prosperous businesses are those that invest heavily in, and regard as their most important asset, the people who work for them.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pond: I want to make a little progress, but I shall give way later.
An extension of parental—as opposed to maternity or paternity—leave would have a significant impact. One in five people are parents of a child under five; indeed, I understand that one in eight hon. Members are parents of a child under five. None of us can pretend that the Palace of Westminster leads the way in promoting family-friendly policies. Any institution that begins its main business an hour before schools close and continues until an hour at which even the most recalcitrant child should be fast asleep in bed cannot describe itself as family-friendly.
I do not complain about that. I have a five-year-old child but, like so many other hon. Members with young children, I find that the Whips are flexible and accommodating when it is necessary to put home before work. Attitudes in the House have changed to some extent. In 1979, the then Member of Parliament for Leicester, West promoted a private Member's Bill to introduce seven days' paternity leave. It was described by Conservative Members as grotesque, absurd and an incitement to a population explosion.
I had thought that those attitudes had changed, until I heard the shadow Secretary of State describe such proposals as economic illiteracy. Indeed, I must correct the hon. Member for Billericay. She said that the working families tax credit could be paid to people with salaries of up to £38,000 a year and so would cover up to half the population. That example applies only to those families with five children under the age of 11, and I do not think that even the hon. Lady believes that such families constitute half the population.
I was fortunate that, when my child was born, I worked for an organisation—the Low Pay Unit—which took family-friendly policies seriously. The weeks that I was able to spend with my daughter at the beginning of her life formed a bond between us which will be long-term, enduring and sustainable. In thinking about reforming the Child Support Agency, perhaps we need to think also about ways in which we could encourage that commitment by fathers to their children at an early stage—which may make institutions such as the CSA less necessary.
It is sad that many relationships between adults break down and end in separation or divorce, but the relationship between a parent and a child should never end, under any circumstances. The policies proposed by the Government to promote family or parental leave will assist in the process, and I fully support the Government.
The measure will not just assist fathers. In Europe and America, 55 to 60 per cent. of working women supply half or more of the family's household income—those figures are from the International Labour Organisation. In just over 10 years' time, the ILO tells us, 80 per cent. of all women in industrialised countries will be working outside the home throughout their child-bearing years. The Government's welfare-to-work strategy is intended to promote further opportunities for people to work if they wish to do so—even when they are parents.
If the employment responsibilities within the household are to be more equally shared, so too should the parenting responsibilities. That is why the policies are so important. At present, many fathers find it difficult to be actively involved in their children's lives. The average working week for fathers is 20 hours longer than for working mothers, and four hours longer than for other employed men. More seriously, men's working hours tend to increase when a new child comes into the family. At the very time when it might be argued that a father's role is so important, many feel that they have no choice but to work longer hours to meet the additional costs of that new mouth to feed. That is bad for children and for their families.
The Family Policies Study Centre tells us that the culture of long working hours may pose a threat to the stability of family life, and a major survey has shown that one in four fathers work more than 50 hours a week and that their absence had a detrimental effect on joint family activities.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs may be sceptical about the working time directive, but I wonder what he would say to the person who, not so long ago, wrote to the Low Pay Unit to say that she was expected to work 112 hours a week, night work,

for £150 before tax. That is not a matter of choice. Very often, it is a matter of someone saying, "Either you work these hours or you have no job."
The current situation is bad for children and families, but it is also bad for the economy and society. A MORI survey, commissioned by the Daycare Trust, found that three quarters of employers believed that there was a business case for family friendly employment policies.

Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman has helpfully come back to the point on which I first wished to intervene—the argument that there is a business case for the measures. I am sympathetic to that argument, and many business men would agree that one can run a more effective and productive work force by being generous and accommodating to employees. Surely that is an argument against legislating in those areas. If productivity can be improved and businesses can improve their performance, one does not need to legislate to force such proposals on them.

Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman's point underlines something that I was about to say. The chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox agrees with both of us that family-friendly working practices are a "powerful business tool." That was what he told a conference in September, and he added that, as a result,
workers are more efficient, productive and satisfied in the job.
The difficulty is that, if such matters are left solely to voluntary arrangements—as the Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out—firms will be at a disadvantage in terms of the recruitment and retention of staff. The large firms which can afford to get the competitive advantage of looking after their staff well will do so, and there will be a further squeezing out of the small firms sector.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pond: No, I wish to make a little more progress. I am sure that I will return to the point in a few moments, and I may allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again.
The current situation is bad for society as a whole, and inadequate fathering has an impact on a child's social development—as reflected in juvenile crime, marital break-up and stress. The House should take seriously the wish of 80 per cent. of eight to 15-year-old children who want to spend more time with their fathers. I am pleased that, as a result of the proposals, they will be able to do that.
To be effective and equitable, parental leave should be paid—as is the case in most other EU countries. I am pleased that the Government are considering the introduction of paid paternity leave, as confirmed by a written answer in Hansard on 11 June.
I believe that the principle should be extended to family or parental leave generally. Many employees have a contractual entitlement to such leave. Even when no payment exists, higher-paid employees may well decide—and often do—that they need to take time off around the birth of their child. For low-paid employees, that is not an option—unless parental or family leave is paid. Half of families with children under five say that they are only just making ends meet. They cannot afford to take time off, even though that may be the right thing for their


children at the time. For that reason, the arrival of a child may result in those fathers working longer hours, rather than fewer.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham asked, what is a responsible parent to do in those circumstances? When a new child comes into a household, most would say that it is the role of both parents to be involved. However, a responsible parent on a low wage without paid parental leave may decide that the most responsible thing to do is to work even longer hours—even if that means that they are not available—to supplement the family income at a time when that is necessary.
The small firms sector has made it clear that it does not find difficulties with the proposals, despite what Opposition Members have suggested. At the launch of the parental leave campaign organised by New Ways to Work, the Federation of Small Businesses said that payment for parental leave would not be a difficulty for small firms, assuming that it was reimbursed easily to overcome possible cash-flow problems.
Parental leave is a feasible policy that will certainly benefit families and children, and society as a whole. I believe also that it makes good business sense. I warmly welcome the proposals in the Queen's Speech, and I look forward to seeing them brought into legislation.

Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), as it gives me an opportunity to point out a profound illogicality in his remarks. He said that there was a business case for the proposals, and seemed to suggest that there was a business case only for large companies which would gain a competitive advantage. However, he went on to say that small businesses would be disadvantaged. If there is an advantage for a business—large or small—surely small business will embrace the proposal as well, and will not suffer a competitive disadvantage.
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) may not always remember where he is, but he always remembers what he believes. There is no doubt about his passion for representing the interests of Bolton and the north-west. Sadly, he invariably reaches the wrong conclusions about how the best interests of that city and our region can be pressed forward most effectively. The great prosperity of Manchester and the area that he and I are privileged to represent was built through free markets: it was built through enterprise, not through the socialist regulation that the Government have foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech.
It is a great and refreshing thing, though, to hear a Labour Member setting out an honest set of beliefs, in stark contrast with what we hear from Ministers, who get themselves tied up in trying to justify some of their proposals in a rather illogical fashion. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may have betrayed the reasons for that, as well as the low regard that he has for many of his Cabinet colleagues, when he described the Government as half-intelligent—although that may have been flattery.
The fatal flaw in the Government's economic and business policy is that they are making it progressively more costly to produce goods in this country as compared

with competitor countries throughout the world. It is bizarre to hear Ministers repeatedly talking about their belief in greater labour market flexibility, precisely when they are decreasing that flexibility. That will cause a progressively worse problem for British business at a time when world and domestic economic trends suggest it is likely to be least able to cope with added burdens.
It never fails to amaze me how the Government use a word to mean the exact opposite of what the rest of us understand by it. That appears to be the case with the word "flexibility". The game was given away to me when I went to Brussels with the Employment Committee and we had a meeting with Padraig Flynn, the Social Affairs Commissioner, who, just after the Prime Minister had come back from the so-called jobs summit, said to me, "Oh, no. We are not talking about flexibility but about positive flexibility." I apologise to hon. Members for my poor impersonation, and perhaps I should apologise to the Commissioner, too.
Mr. Flynn said that the agenda of the European Union, with which he believed the Government were entirely in accord, was not about creating greater flexibility, as any normal commentator or outside observer would understand it, but about something entirely different, called positive flexibility, which in fact meant the opposite. When I asked the Social Affairs Commissioner which country he thought had the most flexible labour market at the moment, he said Denmark, not the United Kingdom.
A few days ago, I put the same question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who gave an even more remarkable reply, saying that the United Kingdom had the most flexible labour market. It is odd that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to take credit for that, when the whole thrust of his policy will make our labour market less flexible.
The Government would be wise to consider the great Conservative achievement of the past 20 years in freeing up the British economy, making it more flexible and competitive, and allowing a more responsive employment market to develop. Those things can be destroyed overnight, but they are very difficult and time-consuming to put in place.
That was brought home to me last week when I had the privilege of addressing a seminar in Bonn, where the British Council's hospitality was adequate, but not exotic. One of the other speakers, a German economist from the Kiel institute for world economics, presented some very interesting findings, in particular a comparison between the UK and west German employment markets. He was careful to remove the effect of reunification from the comparative figures.
That economist's graphs showed that the decline in manufacturing employment in both the United Kingdom and west Germany had followed a broadly similar trend, but that in the former that had not led to a constant trend increase of unemployment as it had in the latter. The inescapable conclusion is that the more flexible, freer labour market, and the more dynamic economy built up in this country by Conservative Governments, can deliver higher levels of employment and is the fundamental reason why our unemployment is at only half the level that prevails in Germany.
It is a great cause for concern that the direction of European Union policy may make things much worse. The Social Affairs Commissioner clearly has an agenda


of raising social and employment costs, and members of the Government, along with their socialist colleagues in Europe, have signed up to increased labour costs and reduced flexibility. The programme has serious potential consequences for the UK economy.
In line with frequent comments from the German Government, the head of customs and revenue in the European Union stressed in the Evening Standard today that the single currency will be the engine driving taxation issues. It is becoming increasingly plain to everyone outside the Government that achieving and maintaining convergence in a single currency area will have numerous implications, with harmonised social, employment and taxation regulations and law. It is time that the Government recognised that and stopped risking leaving the British public to make decisions in the dark.
We do not yet know what will be proposed in detail, after a protracted debate in the national newspapers between the left wing of the Labour party and the trade unions on the one hand, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Confederation of British Industry on the other. He appears to be trying to please both the unions and the CBI.
We do not know exactly what the final fairness at work proposals will be, but it is certain that they will increase costs on businesses and make it less efficient to run them in the United Kingdom, with a damaging effect on employment. That was perhaps recognised by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks, when his only proposal to help enterprise was to remove the stigma of business failure. Perhaps he was quietly recognising that his one achievement on enterprise and business will be to oversee the closure of far more businesses, with far more people put out of work.
Today, we have read that we had the highest ever trade deficit this month: £2.5 billion. That will be made worse as the cost of producing goods here increases relative to the cost elsewhere. The new deal programme is vastly expensive and has only one distinction: that it has completely arrested the decline in unemployment in the target groups, and possibly even turned it around.
It is a remarkable fact that, in April to July 1997, 27,000 18 to 24-year-olds who had been unemployed for six months or more came out of unemployment, whereas, in January to April 1998, unemployment in that age group increased by 1,226, and in April to July 1998—the first quarter when the new deal was effective—only 2,500 came out of unemployment.
The figures showing whether employability is being enhanced are perhaps more damning still. The likelihood of 18 to 24-year-olds remaining unemployed for nine months if they have already been unemployed for six months is increasing. In July 1997, the likelihood of still being unemployed after nine months was 60 per cent: in July this year the figure had risen to 64 per cent.
The Government promised to put young unemployed people back into work, but they have failed. The Government said that their new deal programme would increase employability. That is difficult to define, and therefore to judge, but the figures are beginning to make it clear that the Government are also failing at that.
The new deal programme will not even compensate for the massive increased costs to business that the Government have created. It will not compensate for

the cost of the minimum wage or of the working time directive. Perhaps more important—I made my point about the Engineering Employers Federation's submission earlier in an intervention in the speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the new deal programme will not compensate for the enormous burden of regulation and record-keeping that the Government's proposals will force on to business.
I turn to the Government's achievements, or rather failures, in education. Education is vital for the well-being and development of our children, as well as for our economic success. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that this country has not had the strongest educational record, and that has been true for some time.

Ms Candy Atherton: For 18 years.

Mr. Brady: It is longer than that since this country had the best performance in education, which we would all like to see. The hon. Lady and her party would be wise to seek to improve what is failing, rather than to break down what is succeeding. I represent an area with some of the best schools in the country, certainly in Greater Manchester, where we have a selective education system, with good grammar schools and good secondary modern schools. I am concerned that one of the Government's priorities was to introduce a programme to destroy good schools rather than to improve bad ones. That is also the case in the foolish and wilful destruction of the grant-maintained schools, which have achieved so much already and could have achieved so much more in raising standards in education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I both had the pleasure of serving in Committee on the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, as did the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who cannot say so, even from a sedentary position. I am happy to give him credit for the many hours that we enjoyed in Committee.

Mr. Don Foster: Ahem!

Mr. Brady: How could I forget the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)?
In the debates on class sizes in Committee, we raised several concerns that what started as a laudable objective could go horribly wrong for schools and for the Government. I take no pleasure in the fact that many of those concerns have already started to come back to us in constituency mail. Some schools are concerned that their budgets will be hit; others fear that they will lose members of staff because their rolls are falling; yet others think that they will lose teaching assistants as a result of the Government's policy. The Government's record to date is woeful, and suggests that they will reduce educational attainment rather than improve it. The Queen's Speech contained no proposal of any consequence to address those problems or to try to raise the standard of the Government's performance in education.
The Queen's Speech foreshadowed increased costs for business. Its proposals will put more people out of work, make it harder for Britain to compete in the world and fail to provide any new hope to children for a better standard of education to improve our performance in the future.

Ms Candy Atherton: My speech welcoming the Queen's Speech was going to be much longer, but the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) have allowed me to shorten my contribution. Both spoke about children and the effect of work on the family.
As a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I have an especial interest in our plans to develop the new deal, and it is appropriate to talk about that, given the speech by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I also wish to talk about employability and fairness at work. I pay tribute to the members of the employment service in Cornwall, who have worked hard to become a beacon as pathfinders for the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds and as pilots for the 25-plus group. I welcome today's publication of the new deal document for the under-25s, which illustrates the innovation that the Government and the employment service are putting into developing the new deal.
Cornwall especially will build innovatively on existing programmes. For example, one project will enable older workers with experience in declining industries to use their experience in growth industries. Another project has been successful in helping workers to transfer into woodland management and timber processing. In a part of the country such as Cornwall, which has lost tin mines, where farming has been in decline and fishing has had its problems, new opportunities through the new deal are to be welcomed.
I was privileged to serve on the Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill. When I am a lot older than I am now, one of my favourite memories of Parliament will be the faces of Conservative Members as they realised that they faced all-night sittings of the Committee because Labour Members were determined to force through the national minimum wage. The Conservatives realised that they were going to be there all night and into the afternoon, because we were committed to our manifesto commitment to get rid of poverty wages. I was proud to be part of introducing that historic measure to provide fair wages for a fair day's work. Let me warn the Conservatives that we shall not let them get away with holding up our Bills in this Session, either.
I look forward to the fairness at work legislation. As a Cornish Member, I am glad that it will address various issues. Take South West Water—actually, somebody: please take South West Water. It has the highest bills and the lowest performance indicators in the country, not to mention some diabolical plans that it has implemented or intends to implement in my constituency. On top of everything, South West Water has de-recognised Unison. Despite the support of the overwhelming majority of workers for the union, the company refused point blank to recognise it.
The fairness at work legislation will remedy that situation. It cannot be right, when the majority of workers wish to be members of a union, that a large employer, such as South West Water, can refuse to recognise it. That unfairness needs to be addressed.
I hope that we shall also see an end to the blacklisting of union members. Hon. Members will not need reminding of the appalling treatment that many people

have suffered at the hands of the Economic League and others. The end of that situation will be welcomed throughout the country.
Much in the Queen's Speech will be welcomed by women. My right hon. and hon. Friends have discussed parental leave, which will give mothers and fathers individual rights, not transferable between them. I can think of few more family-friendly policies than that. Parents will be able to use their leave to attend school events, provide child care, or simply bond with their child. I hope that Opposition Members will reflect and support that proposal. Conservative Members talk of the cost to industry, but imagine the savings to industry if fewer family breakdowns occurred. Policies that support parents in raising their children should be supported even by some of the ayatollahs on the Conservative Benches.
As a Cornish Member, I welcome the news that there will be reform of structural funds. We in Cornwall look forward to the new year, when final areas are to be announced. With the lowest gross domestic product in the country, we look forward to some good news in 1999.
I very much support the Queen's Speech. Apart from the obvious big battles that stretch before us, such as reform of the House of Lords—something that I particularly welcome—it is clear that Bills that focus on fairness at work, for example, will improve the lives of men and women throughout the country. That will build a stronger partnership between workers and employers, provide necessary protection and lead to new ways of working.

Mr. Don Foster: We have had a fascinating debate so far, and one enlivened with some powerful speeches. I refer particularly to the contribution of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). I wish to place it on record how much I agree with every one of his remarks. It is appropriate also to refer to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who spent a large part of his speech praising others who have worked hard on disability rights. It would be inappropriate for the debate to conclude without reference to the significant effort that he has put into forcing through disability rights. I put on record, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, our support for the work that the hon. Gentleman has done.
Predominantly, the debate has been about trade and industry matters. However, it is billed as a debate that is intended also to cover education and employment. I hope that the House will not object if I use the few minutes that are available to me to pick up one or two issues relating to those subjects.
I am sure that the House will be aware that I would have liked many education and employment issues to be set out in the Gracious Speech. For example, I would have liked to see a Bill relating to lifelong learning. The Government have made some good progress in that direction, but they have so far failed to acknowledge the vital importance of a strategic planning framework for lifelong learning. A Bill would be very important.
I would have liked to see a Bill taking forward further developments in early-years education. We know that the Government have committed themselves—the Labour party did so in its manifesto—to developing high-quality early years education for three-year-olds as well as for four-year-olds. However, unfortunately, despite the


questions submitted to the Department, we still have not received from it a commitment on when the extension will take place. Legislation to bring forward that extension, while at the same time adding to the Government's proposals for early-years education, would be important.
I would like to see an agreement on both sides of the House that there is a need to have a specific key stage for the early years, perhaps to be called a foundation key stage. It seems odd that, while both sides of the House have recognised that the early years in education are the most important, and although we have key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4, we do not have a specific key stage for that phase.
I would have liked to see other proposed pieces of education and employment legislation in the Queen's Speech, perhaps those covering all aspects of employment. I would have liked also to see proposals for age discrimination legislation going further than the Government's current plans to have a non-statutory, non-binding code of practice. I would have been pleased to see specific statutory legislation proposed in that regard.
It seems from the Queen's Speech that there is to be no new legislation for education. In a sense, I am expressing disappointment, because I have said that I would like to see references to certain pieces of proposed legislation. In another sense, I confess to some relief. I have been in the House since 1992 and, during every year since then, I have served on Committees considering one, and more often two, major pieces of education legislation. That is my personal relief, and no doubt the Secretary of State shares it. We are delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place this evening. I know that he has a busy schedule. He may have had to make some difficult changes so as to be with us this evening. I suspect that he may not be pleased about that, but that he is pleased that there is not to be specific new education legislation.
I suggest to the Secretary of State and to the House that there is an additional benefit in there being no new education legislation. There has been a tendency on the Government's part to be rather quick to grab the headlines with some good, innovative and exciting education measures, many of which that we support, without having necessarily worked out all the details.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) referred to legislation on class sizes, which is a good example. Most hon. Members would support the Government's intention to reduce class sizes. Indeed, many of us would like them to go further and reduce class sizes for key stage 2 as well, and in due course reduce class sizes, at least for the practical subjects, in secondary schools. However, there is no doubt that previous legislation has been rushed through and that many of the details were not sorted out in time.
Bits of sticking plaster have been placed on top of sticking plaster. The sums of money that were originally intended to be sufficient to cover the costs of reducing class sizes were demonstrated clearly to be inadequate, and more money has had to be found.
There is also the problem—there are many other examples—of admission policy. Despite the new admission guidance brought out recently by the Department, many parents still believe that it is important

for them to get their child into the reception class of a school even though they do not want their child to go to it—perhaps because it is an overcrowded reception class—merely to guarantee a place at the statutory school starting age. To solve this problem, the Government have offered what I believe to be the ludicrous proposition that reception classes can leave a place open. Under the current local management of schools formulae, that will not work. What school would leave a place open and lose the money associated with it?
The House will know that my party did not support the introduction of student tuition fees. There were problems in the early days involving gap-year students. Later on, and very recently, there have been problems associated with the analysis of parental income of non-United Kingdom European Union students.
I have given some examples of where details have not been worked out. I suggest to the Government, and particularly to the Secretary of State, three specific areas where they could use the year ahead of us to get some of the details right. I choose the areas of target setting, the bidding process and issues relating to the new deal.
There is no doubt that the Government are right to believe that target setting can be a key tool in levering up standards. We support them in that. However, the issue is whether the targets that are being set are the right ones. I suggest that the Government, by rushing through their proposals, have not arrived at the right target. I refer to the literacy and numeracy targets for key stage 2. The Secretary of State has expressed himself as deeply concerned about literacy and numeracy standards, and rightly so. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore set what he claims to be tough targets. They are so tough that, if 80 per cent. of pupils do not reach level 4 in key stage 2 in literacy, and 75 per cent. do not reach it in numeracy by 2002, he will resign. Those, he claims, are tough targets.
I truly believe that there is no question but that those targets will be met, not only in time but, I suspect, a year ahead of time. In my view, they are not tough targets. Instead, they are politically expedient targets. More important, there is a fallacy within this target-setting agenda, for the simple reason that the Government have rightly expressed their desire to remove social exclusion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised at the Labour party conference that the Government would abolish social exclusion as we understand it. Yet, if targets are set so that 80 per cent. of children have to reach a particular level while the other 20 per cent. have no target, there is no incentive for teachers to work to ensure that the children at the bottom end of the ability range, who have no chance of hitting the target, will have their standards raised. That is a real problem. It almost takes us back to the horrid days of the old 11-plus exam.
There is an urgent need for a rethink of target-setting procedures so that there are targets for those at the bottom end of the ability range. The latest evidence from the Department's own figures shows that the results of children at the bottom end of the ability range simply are not moving upward, although the results of the remainder are moving pleasingly. There is a growing gap between the successful and the unsuccessful. That is evidence of growing social exclusion, not of its removal.
My second point relates to the bidding process. The Government have made additional money available for education, and we have said that we are pleased by that.


We have campaigned for it for a long time. My concern is the mechanism that is being used to ensure that the money gets to the right place. Often the additional money must be bid for. Since the Government came to office, more than 16,000 bids have been produced by local education authorities. A lot of detailed work and effort has gone into those bids, but more than 10,000 have failed. Roughly speaking, there is a two-thirds chance that a bid will fail despite all the effort. That does not result in high-quality education for all, as the Prime Minister promised. It provides high-quality education for some.

Mr. Blunkett: I shall endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman's other points in my winding-up speech, but I want to make it clear that the resources allocated today make it highly likely that work done on drawing up plans and putting together proposals and prioritisations will be successful. Those who have plans to replace rooms and boilers, to make window frames tight and to ensure that there is an environment in which to teach will receive the resources to fulfil the plans. Without prioritisation, it would be impossible for a school, a local authority or the church authorities to be able to order work sensibly.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that. However, a large number of bids are still outstanding. The Secretary of State has announced additional money for repair and maintenance of school buildings, but the success rate of bids to date in that area has been just 25 per cent., with 75 per cent. of bids failing. There are also huge variations across the country. In Oxfordshire, only 10 per cent. of bids have been successful. The London borough of Ealing is even worse, with only 8 per cent. of bids succeeding. I hope that the bidding process can be re-examined.
Finally, the new deal is another area in which the Government need to do much more detailed work. The Government appear not even to have done their homework on making arrangements to collect the information necessary if we are to judge the new deal. Other hon. Members have already said that we do not know whether the new deal is improving employability, a factor that is clearly crucial. In recent weeks, I have asked the Government for information about the new deal, but they were unable to tell me how many subsidised vacancies there were, the size of the companies taking on new deal trainees, the courses that people were taking on the full-time education and training option, or the providers of those courses. Nor could they tell me anything about the progress of ex-offenders, other than the number who joined the scheme early.
Perhaps my biggest concern is that the new deal seems not to provide information even on where people are going. The latest figures show that the destination of 9,500 individuals on the new deal is totally unknown. The Government are failing even to collect data, never mind getting all the detail right. The fact that we have no education legislation this year gives the Government a real opportunity to get the details right. I hope that they will take the opportunity to move education and employment forward in a way that the country desperately needs. If the Government are prepared to do that, the Liberal Democrats are more than willing to offer them support.

Mr. David Crausby: Before I came to the House last year, I spent 30 years in the engineering industry. I started work at 16 as an apprentice, and I joined hundreds of workers in walking to work in the early hours each morning. That was a real world. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is no longer in his place, but he talked about the real world. Well, that was a real world, and I valued it.
Unfortunately, that world was devastated in the early 1980s by the monetarists in the Conservative party. It has become a disappearing world. If I walked to work early these days, treading the same streets I trod then, all I would see would be the milkman, and even he is becoming increasingly rare. The industrial world that I knew and loved has declined massively, and Britain is a much poorer place for it. The decline has been not just economic, but social and cultural. Generations of industrial and engineering workers and employers provided not only manufactured goods, but employment and wealth for whole communities.
For 28 of my years in industry, I was an elected trade union representative. I witnessed a decline in industrial relations, just as I watched our industrial base disappear down the plughole. It does not really matter what came first, or who was to blame for the decline of management-employee relationships. As in all wars, there were no winners, just casualties. Anyone who has a real understanding of, or a genuine concern for, good industrial relations should understand that collective interests involve everyone. That must include the interests of both employers and employees. Responsible trade unionists with any experience soon recognise that the best wages and conditions in the world are pretty pointless if the company went out of business last week. Good shop stewards are well trained shop stewards.
Too often, the problem is that employers do not discuss their problems with their employees. When they do, they often exaggerate, or they do not reveal the full picture. Good employer-employee relationships, like good marriages, should be based on mutual trust and honesty. That is why partnership is so important if we are to succeed as any sort of industrial nation.
The "Fairness at Work" White Paper is a good and encouraging example of how trade unions and business can work together to deliver a document that represents almost all points of view. It has clearly walked a difficult tightrope, and we are bound to hear criticism of it from all sides. If that were not the case, it would probably have failed to strike an honourable balance. The proposals in the White Paper should remain undiluted, as they are balanced proposals that should succeed.
We will still have the most lightly regulated labour market of any leading industrial economy, but what is wrong with that if we get our regulation right?
As for the working time directive—an over-hyped problem—during all the 28 years that I represented employees in industry, not one individual complained to me about the amount of overtime that he or she was being forced to do by an employer. Employees often argued about how much overtime their employers were delivering. The truth is that most employees want to work, and they want to work lots of hours. If employers cannot organise that sensibly with their employees, they are bound to fail in business.
What is important is that the proposals offer the biggest advance in employee rights for a generation, which is not surprising, because the previous Government took us so far in the other direction and built up so much animosity among workers that we almost tore our industrial economy apart in the end. As a result of that legislation, we ended up where we are today. It was not a Labour Government who decimated industry, but a Conservative Government, who so regulated the trade unions that they drove us to a complete lack of co-operation.
Much fuss has been made about the recognition proposals contained in the White Paper "Fairness at Work". Some old-fashioned and misguided employers have attempted to weaken the proposals to the point where they become almost sterile. Progressive employers do not need legislation, and that is a fact. They see the absolute value of recognition.
Therefore, we must resist the industrial dinosaurs, because all that is proposed is recognition, which in any civilised society is just good manners. If we do not recognise each other's existence, how can we communicate at all? Recognition alone does not deliver anything, that is the truth of the matter. Only through sensible negotiations and good relationships can we make real progress. To do so, we must recognise each other. To develop any relationship in any walk of life, we must at least recognise each other. If we cannot do so, we are surely doomed as a modern, progressive economy.
Much in the White Paper disappoints me. I do not intend to go into the list, as it has been dealt with, but I am thinking particularly of the one-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection. If a dismissal is unfair, why should it matter when it happens?
In my early trade union days, the majority of those in the trade union movement did not want unfair dismissal tribunals. They preferred to deal with such dismissals through industrial action. They argued that the courts should be kept out of the trade union scene. That seems a pretty old-fashioned view now. At every opportunity, we should be seeking ways to deliver rights to individual workers, rather than cause disruption. I cannot understand those people who oppose not only the trade union movement but the rights of individuals to take a dismissal to a tribunal. That seems contradictory.
On the other hand, the White Paper suggests some progressive changes—particularly the requirement to hand over to employers the names of those who will be taking part in a strike ballot, and allowing dismissed strikers to claim for unfair dismissal. In this modern world, anything less smacks of intimidation.
Of course, there has to be much more negotiation, and a great deal more has to be said by each side. That is the nature of the trade unions and those negotiating on the employer's side. However, it must not become a question of victory for either side, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested. It is not a question of victory, or of whose side the Government are on. They are on the side of the interests of the British people. We should not make the mistake that the previous Government made, because they took us into more conflict and dissatisfaction. That is why I urge the Government to stay with the White Paper as it stands.

Mr. John Hayes: I have waited to make my contribution to this debate mindful of the diminishing number of my colleagues. I do not know whether they have been deterred from attending by my impending oratory, or perhaps by the demagoguery of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) or even the contribution of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Notwithstanding that fact, I intend to concentrate on two aspects of the Gracious Speech—disabilities and education—partly because they are two subjects that I know something about. I learned before coming to this place that it is best in life—and certainly in Westminster—not to speak about matters of which one knows little.
Would that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had learned that lesson. Those of us who have made our living in information technology and who have worked in the field for some years were astounded by some of his pontificating on that subject—for example, speaking of electronic commerce as something of a revolution around the corner, when many companies, including mine, have been engaged in it for some considerable time—even some time before I came to the House.
The notion that business is not already being done by means of the internet and other forms of technology is at best naive. The idea of a digital envoy, speeding his way around the country spreading good news, and presumably good will, everywhere is little more than a gimmick. Good practice in information systems and high technology exists in all parts of the country. We do not need some envoy to tell us exactly how to spread such good practice. So I urge the Secretary of State not simply to parrot words on matters of which he seems to have little comprehension.
On a more positive note, I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). The hon. Member for Bath anticipated my remarks to some extent, by paying tribute to the good work that the hon. Gentleman has done. I speak as the very junior new joint chairman of the all-party disablement group. The hon. Member for Kingswood speaks with altogether more authority as the well-respected and senior secretary.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member had to say on disablement. He will welcome the acceptance, welcome and support that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave the disability rights commission. The hon. Gentleman was a little churlish about my right hon. Friend, who was a well-respected Minister for the disabled. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that my right hon. Friend was genuine in welcoming the commission yesterday.
My right hon. Friend said that we need to examine the detail of the proposal, and I shall make two observations—not objections—about that detail. First, we must not ignore the most neglected disabled people. It is easy to think of the disabled as a generic group—easy, but misleading. The needs of people with different disabilities vary widely, and the chronically sick disabled are often the forgotten element within that group.
That point has been made by Sense in respect of deaf-blind people, and it is also true of multiple sclerosis sufferers, who are often not heard because they are chronically sick. Some disabled people—perhaps those


with spinal injuries who have made good recoveries from accidents—are able to live good lives and to speak loudly, forcefully and persuasively in defence of disabled interests. They are usually the people we encounter representing the disabled. That is understandable, and I make no criticism of them, but the chronically sick disabled can easily be forgotten. We must ensure in the work of the commission that that is not the case in future.
My second observation is that disabled people do not live by rights alone. I should declare an interest, as I have a disability. It is important that we do not tie the treatment of the disabled—especially the financial support for disabled people—wholly and solely to work. Careless statements from Ministers have caused considerable disquiet, some offence and a great deal of trepidation among disabled people, because there has been a suggestion that people can be full members of society only if they work.
We must give every disabled person the opportunity to work, and we must pave their way to fulfilling that opportunity, but we must never forget that a significant number of disabled people—because of the nature of their disability, their age or other circumstances—do not work and never will. They must never be treated as second class, even within the family of disabled people. Having used the word "family" after saying that disabled people are not a generic group, I have perhaps contradicted myself a little, but I am sure that the House will forgive me for that.
Those are my two observations on that subject, and I very much want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood.
The most prominent feature of the Gracious Speech is not what is in it, but what is left out. That is especially true of education. The hon. Member for Bath said that that is good news—later, I shall deal with initiative fatigue, which is felt by most schools and teachers throughout the country—but it is not entirely good news, because it is indicative of lack of vision.
There is little evidence in the Gracious Speech of any holistic view of social progress or of economic success, and there is certainly no clearly defined view of the national interest, or even of man in society. I can almost hear my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) saying, "Well, what do you expect? If there is no such thing philosophically as a single view or a big idea, why expect it to be in the Speech?" In my view, however, public policy, at this stage in a Government's progress, should have some sense of purpose, unity and symmetry about it. I see none of that in the Gracious Speech.
The Prime Minister is fond of calling that joined-up government, but the only thing that was joined up in the words that we have heard from Ministers tonight was the suggestion that all these policies are linked by the common word "modernisation". The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry might have used the word "modernity". I have to tell him that the worship of modernity is not only divisive in itself, but not implicitly symptomatic of a coherent view of the present, let alone the future. It is not enough to say that, just because something is modern or new, it is therefore good, and that it hangs together with other measures in the national interest or for the common good.
That is true in a number of particular policy areas. In education, for example, there are many holes in the Gracious Speech. The absence of legislation relating to lifelong learning and early years has been mentioned, and yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition talked about the gap in respect of the expansion of popular schools and the sharing of good practice. Those are legitimate criticisms of the Government's approach to education.
We have heard a little about the problems of the class size proposals, and how their implementation is leading to unanticipated difficulties for the Government. Perhaps it was for that reason that they were reluctant to introduce still more changes.
Surely, though, there should have been in the Gracious Speech evidence of commitment to sharing good practice—from specialist schools and beacon schools, for example. These questions need to be asked: what responsibility do beacon schools have to export their excellence and innovation? Where are the targets, not only in terms of the school, but for the spreading—the fountaining down, to use a popular term, or, in more egalitarian vein, the fountaining out—of that good practice? I had hoped to see some mention of that.
Where are the plans to allow the benefits of investment in special schools to be felt across the whole sector? I have some experience in that area, and know that there is little evidence that investment is benefiting neighbouring or feeder schools. Although there are some isolated examples of good practice in this respect, there is little suggestion that schools are benefiting universally as a result of that significant private and public sector investment.
I should have thought that some improvement would also be made in respect of targets and measurement. The previous Government changed the education agenda by measuring output, not input. When I first became a member of a local education authority, most of the measurements were those of input, such as spending and pupil-teacher ratios. The current consensus is that we need to measure empirically what schools deliver. Given that the previous Government laid that foundation, one might have expected this Government to take up the baton and to refine and improve those means of measurement. One might have expected them to look more carefully at measuring value added.
If schools are to be financially rewarded, and teachers' salaries are to be based on clearly defined targets and proper measurement, we must be sure what we are measuring. We need to identify excellent schools and teachers who out-perform their catchment area and do exceptionally well despite the fact that they start with few inherent advantages. Equally, we must carefully scrutinise the schools in leafy suburbs that under-perform.
We can do that only through empirical measurement of value added. I commend to the House the work of Sheffield university and the work done in Scotland, some of which was started some seven years ago, so it is well established. There is a lot of evidence on how measurement of value added can be achieved. Some good local authorities, both Labour and Conservative, have already gone down that road, yet the Government seem reluctant to propose a consolidated national programme.
The Government also seem unable to make proposals in respect of the best use of technology. We heard a great deal about the digital envoy and the impact on industry of


information technology and high technology, but we heard little about the effective use of the internet in schools or higher and further education. The effectiveness of all that is extremely patchy.
The Government have spoken about training teachers in IT. The Minister twitches. Although positive steps have been taken, I assure him that the effective use of the internet and information technology in schools is extremely patchy. It needs to be pulled together urgently if a great deal of money is not to be wasted on inappropriate hardware and software.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): The hon. Gentleman draws attention to my twitching, so I might as well exercise it further. What he describes is an inheritance; it has not been created over the past 18 months. He need tell no one on the Government Benches that IT and computer provision in schools is highly patchy. Last year, I visited a school in my constituency which had one computer that was younger than the 16-year-olds using it. People voted for a Labour Government precisely because they wanted every school in the country to be equipped to the best standards.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister misunderstands the problem. It is a question not of acquisition but of effective use. It is not a question of the number of computers on desks, but of how they impact on teaching and learning, how effectively they are integrated into delivery of the curriculum, and what impact they have on the relationship between the teacher and the taught. Some schools with few computers use them effectively, while others have invested heavily in hardware without matching it with training, software and support. Computers lie idle and have no impact on teaching.
It is not as simple as saying that we must spread the jam around the whole country and hope for the best. I want the Government to take a lead in using that investment more effectively. All I am saying, hopefully in a reasoned and moderate way, is that, if we are to spend money on computers, we should ensure that they make a real difference to children. One had hoped for a little more from the Queen's Speech on that issue.
Some of the initiatives that have been announced and implemented in the past year—I referred to initiative fatigue—were well intentioned but half baked. I do not want to debate the past—I would not be allowed to, anyway—but schools in my constituency were already doing much of what was in the literacy hour initiative. Whether that should have been universally applied—as it has been—is debatable.
Many teachers understandably and legitimately resent the fact that their creativity, flair, imagination and ability to innovate is being restricted by an increasingly prescriptive Government, who define what they do, how they teach, how much time they should allocate for homework, and when they should stand at the blackboard and when they should not. We must allow our teachers the flexibility and scope to deliver an effective education using their flair and creativity.
The absence of a thoughtful and considered programme is a cause more of sorrow than of anger. There is a lack of strategy, vision and long-term planning. We are told

that there will be consultation on teaching. We must be careful that that does not become another excuse and opportunity for knocking teachers. Although the Queen's Speech refers to raising teachers' status and profile, there is a real concern that they will not welcome further consultation that will do nothing for their status, and might diminish it still further.
If education is the bridge to self-improvement and personal fulfilment, it deserves priority. Much is said about the priority that the Government have given it, but there are huge holes in the legislative programme in the Queen's Speech in respect of education. Those holes cannot be filled by this Government, but may be filled by a future Conservative Government.

Ms Margaret Moran: I make no apology for returning to the subject of trade and industry. Having sat here throughout the contributions of Conservative Members, I have heard great lamentations and gnashing of teeth. In their view, the Queen's Speech lacks legislation for industry, enterprise or jobs. It is noteworthy that they have not proposed any alternative policies. They have also signally failed to address one of the crucial issues in the Queen's Speech—electronic commerce, which will be fundamental to the future prospects of our industry.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) gave the impression that electronic commerce has already been achieved. His and his hon. Friends' references to it were extremely depressing because they showed that they do not understand its' importance to the future of our industry. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) showed that his party's contribution to the debate on electronic commerce is confused and contradictory. He berated the Government over their intention to introduce voluntary licences for encryption, and revealed that his party's policy is for mandatory arrangements. That is utter nonsense.
Perhaps Conservative Members are embarrassed about the fact that, after all those years in government and despite the framework of telecommunications that they put in place, they never delivered the widespread access to innovation and advanced telecommunication services that they promised.
What the Opposition failed to discuss tonight is an important element of the Queen's Speech, which has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry. The secure electronic commerce Bill will perform the crucial function of updating to encourage worldwide trading, and will improve competitiveness by enabling the United Kingdom to compete in the digital marketplace.
The aim of the Bill is to overcome some of the key factors that have impeded confidence in electronic commerce. It will improve business confidence by establishing voluntary licensing arrangements for bodies offering electronic signature and confidentiality services to the public. The Bill will also introduce voluntary licensing arrangements for bodies offering electronic signatures to the public, to ensure that minimum standards of quality and service are met.
Signatures meeting those standards will, for the first time, have legal status. The Bill will also sweep away the restrictions that insist on the use of paper transactions, and will tackle concerns about law enforcement powers in the face of increasing criminal and terrorist use of encryption.
Lest the Opposition think that measures creating an environment in which electronic commerce can develop are not important to the country's competitiveness—as they have implied this evening—I shall remind them of the scale of internet and electronic business in Britain.
The United Kingdom has the fifth largest information technology industry, worth £45 billion, and it is estimated that, in commerce alone, it will be worth £500 billion within five years. Surely that is worthy of more scrutiny or debate than has been offered by Opposition Members today. The World Economic Forum certainly recognised its importance. Its survey found that 20 per cent. of firms believed that electronic commerce would fundamentally reshape the way in which they did business, and that a further 59 per cent. believed that it would lead to significant changes in their business.
Electronic commerce has been growing for many years. It links companies to suppliers and financial institutions, and business to Government. The United Kingdom has an exceptionally strong base from which to develop electronic commerce as it becomes a significant proportion of global gross domestic product.
As has been said in many debates, we are on the cusp of a quiet revolution, in which electronic commerce will play a significant role in a new commercial world; but harnessing the immense potential offered by electronic commerce to create wealth and jobs means that we must rapidly establish agreed ground rules giving buyers and sellers confidence and trust to use the new technology.
Although the prime economic drive for electronic commerce may currently lie with business-to-business transactions, it is clear that consumers—whether ordering books via the internet or using it for home shopping—must also benefit. They, like business, must be able to take advantage of the potential ease and reduced cost of transactions that the Bill will deliver. Consumers must have confidence in the new system. The need to address concerns about security of transactions, privacy and consumer redress will be crucial to the development of electronic commerce.
The Bill begins to tackle some of the issues by ensuring that messages can be signed electronically, so that a user can check who has signed a message and be confident that it has not been tampered with. Consumers will also have the assurance of confidentiality. For the first time, electronic signatures will have the force of law, and electronic transactions such as the pilot carried out in Luton recently by the National Westminster bank, offering intelligent forms for self-employed business people, will have legal standing.
The creation of such a framework is welcome. I am especially pleased that the Government have recognised that electronic commerce is a key element of competitiveness for small and medium enterprises. Notwithstanding comments by Opposition Members, the Government believe in such enterprises. That is why we have the lowest-ever rate of corporation tax, and why we have introduced incentives for small businesses to invest. It is no use Opposition Members shaking their heads. The Budget increased incentives for small and medium enterprises and has radically enhanced their productivity and prospects.
As I said in a recent Adjournment debate on competitiveness and small businesses, however, it is clear from my experience in my constituency that the

importance and opportunities of electronic commerce to the sector's competitiveness must be more widely known. I am aware of the information society initiative for businesses and its emphasis on small businesses, but not many small businesses that I visited in Luton seemed to know of it. That is borne out by research conducted by the Bedfordshire chamber of commerce, which found that Luton and Bedfordshire small businesses use IT equipment but feel that they are not making optimum use of it. It was depressing to be told on a recent visit to a company of 80 employees that its only technology was an ancient computer for the payroll, and that the director was proud of knowing nothing about new technology.
We must make greater effort to get the message across to small and medium enterprises that the future is in electronic commerce. For small businesses, electronic commerce can overcome numerous barriers to competitiveness. Location and size can become irrelevant; all companies have the same global reach. Electronic commerce can also help suppliers to identify consumer needs more exactly. It will speed processes, giving a greater competitive edge, and cut out the middle man, thereby reducing the costs of small businesses and their clients.
Our small businesses have much to learn from their counterparts in Canada, which I visited recently. There, electronic commerce is well developed and integrated into every aspect of business life, from the large to the micro, from systems to design to new production methods. We can learn from the Industry Canada strategy, which recognises that electronic commerce is but one vital element for creating a knowledge-based economy.
Our strategy must therefore be to build trust in the digital economy, building business and consumer confidence. We must, as we will do in the Bill, clarify marketplace rules, remove barriers to the use of e-commerce and update our legal rules. We must strengthen our information infrastructure to support the growth of e-commerce, and, crucially, realise opportunities for jobs and growth by developing skills and leadership in new technologies, which we know is desperately needed.
I recognise that many such issues can be tackled only on a global basis because electronic commerce introduces the borderless world. That is why I welcome the agreement reached recently by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on her visit to Ottawa and in discussions with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The agreement was particularly welcomed because it broke new ground and opened up opportunities to ensure that the benefits of electronic commerce are reaped by all—be they business, employees or consumers.
The Bill is not just to be welcomed; it lays the foundations for UK primacy in electronic commerce. Crucially, the Bill signals our determination to harness the power of electronic commerce in order to create economic growth and jobs. For UK industry to be competitive, we must ensure that we create the best environment in which to trade electronically. That is just what we are doing. We must also ensure that we are building on an economy that is based on knowledge, creativity and skills. That is why many of the elements in the Queen's Speech refer to creating a knowledge-based society and economy. In order to ensure that we take maximum advantage of


the new opportunities that are offered by the information age, we need those joined-up policies and skills to develop our prominence in the world of e-commerce.
I very much welcome today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which will create a digital envoy to be the champion of the new information age. My right hon. Friend's action will ensure that the United Kingdom plays a leading role in the new world of electronic commerce and that the Government's commitment to modernising our trade and industry is fulfilled. Such action stands in sharp contrast to some of the prehistoric views on trade and industry matters held by Conservative Members.

Mr. David Willetts: I welcome the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to the debate, and am grateful to him for changing his mind and attending it. I appreciate that he has done so at some personal inconvenience. Opposition Members will be very happy to hear his speech, not least because he has no education legislation in the Queen's Speech. Sadly, without substantial education legislation, we may not see quite so much of him in the House or have quite so many opportunities to debate with him.
Tomorrow, we are all, of course, speaking at Harrogate, at the conference of the Association of Colleges. I do not know how the Secretary of State will—

Mr. Blunkett: Need a lift?

Mr. Willetts: That is very kind, but I have already been offered a lift by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). If the Secretary of State wants to join us, he will be very welcome. However, we are setting off at the end of the debate, as we are speaking rather earlier than he is.
As I said, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for speaking in our debate, which takes place against the background of a very sober economic climate—although one would not think so after hearing the speech, at the beginning of this debate, by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or yesterday's speech by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister seemed to be keener on waging class war against hereditary peers than he was on dealing with the economic difficulties facing the United Kingdom.
For six years, unemployment has been on a downward trend. Sadly, the trend seems to be coming to an end. We have just had the unprecedented experience of both unemployment measures—the survey measure and the claimant count measure—beginning to rise. But the Government do not seem to realise that we face a looming problem of rising unemployment. Ministers seem to deny that there is any problem. Instead, we hear what my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor describes as "fantasy forecasts".
Today, in a very fine speech, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) very clearly made the point that the Treasury's growth forecasts are incredible. No serious outside forecaster believes the Treasury's predictions for economic growth. Months after the international financial crisis began, we have a Treasury economic forecast that,

by 2001–02, the British economy will be bigger and better than the Treasury predicted it would be before the international crisis.
No other advanced western country lives in the fantasy world of expecting that its growth rate will be even better than before the crisis. The Treasury seems to be doing so by accepting that there will be some slowdown in the next 18 months, and simply adding back into the second 18 months any output lost in the past 18 months. It is not responsible and reputable forecasting, it is no basis on which the Government should take decisions on management of the economy, and it is no basis on which a responsible Government should be deciding their fiscal policies.
The reasonable, responsible and realistic assessment came only a few days ago, in a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The report stated that, on its definition, unemployment will increase from 6.5 per cent. to 8 per cent., which means that, in the next two years, unemployment will increase by 500,000 people. That is a serious challenge for the British economy, and something that Ministers should be taking seriously—but they are not.
Today, all we have heard in speeches and interventions by Labour Members was a type of night out for old Labour—celebrating fairness at work proposals and increased power for trade unions, but saying absolutely nothing about what they think should be done to deal with the looming jobs crisis. We know what Ministers claim is the solution—the new deal, but that is a monumental irrelevance. It targets a very large amount of money on a very small proportion of unemployed people. The Government are biased entirely in favour of the young unemployed, and are doing nothing to help the long-term unemployed. There are twice as many long-term unemployed, yet they receive one fifth of the new deal budget that goes to the young unemployed, so they receive one tenth of the spend.
Meanwhile, what do we know from the evaluations that are already coming through? The hon. Member for Bath referred to them briefly, but the evidence is pretty clear. Thirty per cent. of people who leave the new deal simply disappear; the Government have no knowledge what happens to them. Another 10 per cent. move on to another benefit, so 40 per cent. for a start do not seem to be gaining anything from the new deal.
I asked the Library to calculate what had happened to young people who had been unemployed for six months in April 1997, and young people who had been unemployed for six months in April 1998. Three months later, what did we find? A higher percentage were still unemployed in July 1998 than in July 1997. That is a warning that the new deal will not deal with the jobs crisis.
I hope that the Secretary of State, when he speaks about the new deal, as I hope he will, will agree that there is a simple and stark measure of success—one that might interest the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has, after all, claimed that the new deal will save money overall. Let us have figures for the total number of subsidised jobs that new dealers enter, the total number


of unsubsidised jobs that new dealers enter and the total spending on the new deal. What we will find is that, with the new deal, the cost per job—

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): We have the figures.

Mr. Willetts: I am pleased that the Minister has the figures. We also have the figures at the Centre for Policy Studies. Tomorrow morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will publish something that has done the calculation. It shows that the new deal is infinitely more expensive than any other training scheme that has been introduced. Sadly, the returns for the young people that it is supposed help are very modest.
It is not just young people who are losing; employers are increasingly frustrated, as we saw in the letter to Sir Peter Davis, chairman of the new deal task force, from the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, Chris Humphries. He said that its members'
concerns now arise because very few, or in some cases, no young people have been referred to them. Many companies report that they have also had little or no contact from the Employment Service, and so a severe lack of information is magnifying their confusion and leading to significant disillusionment.
That is the experience that employers have of the new deal and it is dispiriting.
What the Government should do is announce that they will suspend the implementation of the job-destroying regulations which will hit British businesses in the next 18 months. That would be a serious and considered response to the threat of rising unemployment, because those measures are extremely expensive.
The double tragedy is that the cost of the working time directive, the working families tax credit and the Government's other regulations is not translated into a benefit that flows through to people who earn low pay. The cost is largely accounted for by the administrative costs that employers have to take on board to comply with the record-keeping requirements of all the different regulations. That money does not help anyone.
Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on the performance of the new deal, and perhaps explain to the vast majority of unemployed people who are not eligible for the new deal why, at the same time, his Department is closing job clubs and stripping training and enterprise councils of funds that they intended to use for projects to help, for example, with the retraining of people who have lost their jobs.

Ms Atherton: May I issue an invitation to the hon. Gentleman to visit Employment Service offices in my constituency, in Penryn in Cornwall? There, he can see for himself the innovative and far-reaching implications of the new deal. Let him meet the young people who have got a job for the first time. Let him talk to the people and the companies who have told me that the new deal is the best thing that they have had from any Government in many years. Let him come to Curnow Shipping, which has taken on young people, trained them and given them permanent jobs within the company. I challenge him to come.

Mr. Willetts: I am happy to visit all parts of the country to debate the new deal, but let me tell the hon.

Lady what is happening in the real world. Let me tell her about Hackney, where 1,877 young unemployed people have joined the new deal, and 12 have a job; or about Stockport, where 406 young unemployed people have joined the new deal, and nine have a job; or about West Lothian, where 277 young unemployed people have joined the new deal, and 10 have a job. That is the reality of the new deal throughout the country.
From the unemployment crisis now facing this country, let me turn to the other aspect of the Secretary of State's responsibilities—the education system and our schools. When I visit schools around the country, the message from teachers and head teachers is the same. Only the other week, that message was vividly expressed to me by one head, who said, "The only way that I can possibly hope to meet the Secretary of State's agenda on standards is by ignoring most of the letters that I am sent by him and his Department. If I actually tried to comply with all the regulations, instructions and directives that I am sent by the Department for Education and Employment, it would be absolutely impossible to focus on raising standards in literacy and numeracy."
It is literacy and numeracy that the Secretary of State says he really cares about, and I believe him; but he is in the absurd position of distracting teachers with his flow of initiatives from the very things that he cares most about. That is the abiding complaint one hears from teachers and head teachers around the country.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider stemming the flow of instructions, regulations and directives that he sends out from his Department. Only the other day, on television, I debated the subject with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), whom I see in his place. He admitted that, in his view, the Department had been sending out too many pieces of paper to schools and local education authorities. I welcome that admission. Now that the Government have recognised that they have made a serious mistake, we look to them to do something about it. I hope that the Secretary of State will make an announcement in that respect this evening.
The problem is not only paperwork. The hon. Member for Bath made a pertinent point in this respect, and we all saw the disturbing evidence in The Times Educational Supplement the other week. The problem is also the fragmentation of budgetary responsibility. If, instead of handing over an aggregate grant to an LEA and a total budget to a school and trusting the head teachers' and teachers' professional judgment, what is distributed is a large number of penny packets, each associated with some specific initiative which gets the Secretary of State on the "Today" programme and 24 hours-worth of headlines, all that does is make it more difficult for a head teacher sensibly to plan his own priorities in his own school.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether the £48 million—£2,000 per school—for books is the sort of initiative of which he is thinking; or does he have in mind the new deal for schools, which now amounts, in grant and not in credit approval, to £1.5 billion?

Mr. Jamieson: Tell us about that.

Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman says "Tell us about that," but we have been hearing about it since July last


year and it had another outing today. We are all familiar with it, because we have been hearing about it for 15 months.

Mr. Blunkett: It is important that the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment should be able to refer to a calendar or to events that have taken place, rather than to ones that he has made up. When, either in July last year or over the past 18 months, have we heard about £1.5 billion for the new deal, given that £500 million of that was announced only this morning?

Mr. Willetts: I am referring to the statement in the House on 2 July 1997 in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the figures for new deal expenditure on school capital. I am speaking from memory, but I recall that it was a £1.2 billion programme that sounded suspiciously like the capital under the new deal that the Secretary of State announced again today.
I am happy to tackle the Secretary of State's direct question. Yes, if a head decides that perhaps the priority for his school is not to spend money on the loos, but to employ a maths teacher, who are we to stand in his way? Individual heads are best placed to decide the priorities of their schools. Instead of having a clear total budget that they can spend in the way they think best, head teachers are increasingly having to submit bid after bid for individual and often relatively small sums of money, each associated with some new initiative launched by the Secretary of State. Every time the right hon. Gentleman gets his 48 hours of headlines, he undermines the professional judgment and authority of individual head teachers. I should warn him that they are increasingly frustrated and irritated by that process.
Head teachers are also irritated by the sheer distraction. Despite claims that the Government are interested in standards, not frameworks, many schools have to put so much effort into changing their status and their legal position in order to meet the requirements of the Secretary of State. Tragically, grant-maintained schools are losing some of the freedoms that we gave them and, most recently, grammar schools are being distracted by the Secretary of State's campaign against them.
We agree with the statement:
The 160 grammar schools that there are, let them remain.
Those are the words of the Prime Minister in an interview with ITV on 3 April 1997. We ask only that the Secretary of State endorses what his right hon. Friend has said. However, it is clear that, every time the Prime Minister makes such statements, the Secretary of State takes the opportunity of the detailed regulations on grammar school ballots, which nobody at No. 10 will be able to scrutinise, to smuggle in as much bias as he can to make life difficult for grammar schools.

Mr. Bercow: As my right hon. Friend knows, grammar schools are of the highest importance. The Royal Latin grammar school is testimony to their success [Interruption.] Despite the sedentary chuntering and laughter on the Government Back Benches, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely disturbing that schedule 4 of the regulations that the Secretary of State has commended to the House enable him to declare the

result of a ballot null and void if he considers that the content, tone or presentation of the arguments is not reasonable? Who is to determine what is reasonable in that context?

Mr. Willetts: There was an intriguing story about that in the Financial Times. It looked like another desperate attempt by No.10 to haul back the policy—some briefing with the message, "Don't worry, we'll try to use some of these powers to stop grammar schools disappearing after all." My hon. Friend—the Back Bencher to watch as we must now call him after the Spectator parliamentarian awards—is absolutely right.
We should look at the question that the Secretary of State will put into grammar school ballots. He is not going to ask a straightforward question such as, "Do you want to keep local grammar schools?", which goes straight to the nub of the issue. Instead, he wants to ask, "Are you in favour of a the introduction of a non-selective system of education in local schools?" We learn from an interesting experiment carried out by the Sunday Express last weekend that, if we ask the question in Government gobbledegook, we get a very different answer from the one to a straightforward question that makes it clear that people are voting on whether or not their grammar schools will survive.
The real criticism of the Secretary of State throughout the world of education is that he believes that education should be run by him sitting in the Department sending out instructions to all the LEAs, which in turn send them out to more than 4,000 schools. They then all write the plans for which he is asking—at the last count there were 17—and submit them to the LEAs, which debate them with the schools, revise them and submit them to him. He sits like some old-fashioned industrialist running the nation's schools from Whitehall. No organisation believes that that is the way in which it can enter the 21st century—it is an attack on teachers' professional judgments and standards, and the Secretary of State will anyway find his task impossible.
We should be relieved that there is no education legislation this year. I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman had secured any legislation, it would have been regressive, interventionist, heavy-handed and nannying. We hope that he will reflect on the contradiction between his apparent commitment to raising standards and his behaviour in office.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Dear me. It has been a long day for us all, and I do not intend to prolong it into the early hours of the morning. It behoves me first to congratulate a number of my hon. Friends on their contributions to today's debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has campaigned for people's rights for as many years as I can remember. The appearance in the Queen's Speech of the proposals for the disability rights commission is a tribute to him and to all the people he listed who have made contributions over the years. Much still needs to be done; this is another brick in the wall rather than the construction of the building. However, we are well under way, which we would not be if the Leader of the Opposition had had his way—as has been pointed out, on 23 February 1995, he opposed the establishment of a disability rights commission.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) for what they have said on the important subject of improving rights at work. They showed how positive policies by employers can transform not only individuals' life chances but their contributions to this country's economic well-being. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend for her considerable work on the matter over the years.
I believe that the tribute to campaigners lies in the new sure start programme, in the proposals on child care, in the doubling of nursery places for three-year-olds and in the fairness at work Bill, which together make it possible to provide for children and their parents in a positive, radical and modern way. The House has a great deal to be proud of in what has already been achieved in the past 18 months.
I also thank my other hon. Friends for their contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby).
The debate has been of varying parts. The shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not sure whether he was in favour of what the Conservatives had previously stood for, and he was totally unsure whether he was in favour of what they currently stand for. He rigorously denounced what he was against in past Conservative party policy but he could not say what he was in favour of in current Conservative party policy—no wonder, as the Conservatives do not have any policies and are ashamed of the bits that they think they have. There is a sort of trial by denial in the Conservative party, which is very difficult for Labour Members not to view with equanimity.
The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has decently sent his apologies for not attending the wind-up. I do not know how many other Conservatives have sent their apologies but, given the nature of the debate, one would have thought that more than seven or eight would have turned up.

Mr. John Healey: There are seven.

Mr. Blunkett: There are seven—numeracy is alive and well. Seven have turned up, including, I think, four on the Back Benches. A number of them are clearly here in spirit, if not in person.
The speech by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon made the Leader of the Opposition's speech look immature and feeble. The previous Prime Minister made it clear that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was going to spend most of his political life denying that he had anything to do with past policy. When the previous Prime Minister referred to mistakes, I thought that he was referring entirely to the placement of the right hon. Member for Wokingham in his Cabinet.
Enough of levity mixed with sadness. This evening, we should take head-on some of the silliness that has emerged from Conservative Members. It is difficult to treat seriously anything that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) says in this House, although she sends me entertaining notes from time to time—normally written on the back of letters I have sent her. Her passing

references to the new deal—and everything else—as a sign that we do not want to make families happy seemed to me to be very sad. We in new Labour are totally in favour of happiness, and we will engage in it as often as we can.

Mr. Willetts: Set a target.

Mr. Blunkett: I thought of that, but I decided that it would be unwise to threaten to resign if we did not reach it. We have every intention not only of making people happy, but of making them productive, capable of taking a job and employable, and of ensuring that, in doing so, they can hold their families together.
There was a time when the Conservative party was in favour of the family—when the party believed in supporting and reinforcing families, and in helping them stay together. Apparently, that is not the case any more if that involves family-friendly working practices, or us—that is, the community—helping each other in measures such as the sure start programme. Such measures are always condemned by Conservative Members as bureaucratic or interventionist, or for spending money that they would cut. We all know that, if they had the chance, the Conservatives would cut the £40 billion on education and health. They would cut out the new deal, which the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment described tonight as monumentally irrelevant.
The new deal is not monumentally irrelevant to the 160,000 young men and women who have entered it, nor to the 38,000 who have been placed in a job—70 per cent. of them in an unsubsidised job. That is the answer to the spurious nonsense that the new deal has nothing to do with employability or preparing young people for the world of work. It is certain that giving young people the opportunity to gain a qualification is a sight more preparation for employability than the 29 makeweight schemes that the previous Government invented during their 18 years in office.
One only needs to talk to young people such as David Habachi, who said that, when the new deal was working, he was working. That is true. It is true for those who already have a job, for those who are on the full-time education option and for those on the environmental and voluntary service option. It is giving young people real hope for the first time in generations. To denigrate it is not only cynical—it is a disgrace.
I welcome that small group of Conservative Members of Parliament who have joined us in trying to make the scheme a success, and who have contacted their local Employment Service and engaged with their jobcentres—as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have done. The easiest thing in the world—as the right hon. Member for Wokingham displayed this afternoon—is to declare that one is against everything. That is what the Opposition are doing. They are not saying that there may be problems and they want to help to sort them out. They are not making contact with employers and then putting them in contact with us.
Every employer who has contacted my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities or me has automatically been put in touch with the Employment Service, and we have sorted out their problems. W. H. Smith told me two weeks ago about the vacancies that it had. We immediately


connected the vacancies with the jobcentres. We are doing a first-rate job to ensure that many young people will have a job between now and Christmas, in order to have an income for Christmas.
The answer to the silly survey by the Centre for Policy Studies is that it can pretend that the programme costs £11,000 a job only if it adds up all the sums that go in without adding all the earnings, the reduction in benefit, and the tax and national insurance that will be paid by those who get a job. Being prepared for getting a job and having a qualification to enable one to hold a job down is the whole point of the new deal.

Mr. Willetts: Does the Secretary of State endorse the Chancellor's original proposition that the new deal will end up being self-financing?

Mr. Blunkett: When young people have been in a job for a number of years and secured earnings, they will have refinanced the investment. That is the basis of investing in state education and of the whole existence of the Employment Service and the jobcentres throughout the country.
Job clubs are supplied where unemployment requires such action, and as unemployment has dropped and employment has increased by 400,000 since the general election, we have been able, not to cut the Employment Service, but to reinvest: through the new deal, we have allocated £3.5 billion more to putting people into work and preparing them for jobs, which is what our policies are all about.
Conservative Members have attacked the new deal and shown a cynical disregard for what it means for young people to have a job. This evening, we have heard sneering of the kind that the Leader of the Opposition indulged in yesterday. The shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry even expressed the belief—I think that I am quoting him correctly—that Members of the House of Lords are the voice of manufacturing industry. Well, there we have it.
I shall think about that staggering revelation on my way to Harrogate. I would have taken up the kind offer to travel with the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but they will be travelling on the right side of the road and I want to travel on the left.

Mr. Don Foster: Unfair.

Mr. Blunkett: After that appeal from the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw the allegation against him, in the spirit of unity and—

Mr. Foster: Co-operation.

Mr. Blunkett: Of course. I was struggling to find the word.
Like the hon. Member for Bath, I am totally committed to lifelong learning, and to act on that we need, not legislation, but positive proposals and investment. We are working to develop that. We hope to unite the funding agencies and the providers, so that the training and enterprise councils, the Higher Education Funding

Council and all those working in and providing resources for adult learning are co-operating to enable people to renew their education.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for withdrawing his scurrilous accusation about where I would drive on the road. Does he agree that people are not working in partnership and that there is real competition in delivering important aspects of lifelong learning? For example, the TECs are competing with the further education colleges. We desperately need some form of clear strategic planning framework for lifelong learning. That cannot be given centrally. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to consider a regional planning framework.

Mr. Blunkett: I accept that undue competition has been destructive to delivering education and getting people to work together. We will take steps to ensure that that is overcome and we already have, through the Further Education Funding Council, regional facilities that need to be adapted and expanded. We need to work with the regional development agencies to pull together lifelong learning and skills provision to meet the challenges.
The Government's record in the past 18 months bears scrutiny. We now have the highest number of people in employment since records began. We have the lowest level of unemployment for 18 years. We have reduced by more than a quarter the number of young people out of work, and we have ensured that we have, for the first time in many years, a strategy for the development of skills under the task force chaired by Chris Humphries.
We have a programme with the national training organisations—there are now more than 60—to get industry, commerce and services to work with trade unions, even though they might not have spoken to each other for years, with the training and enterprise councils and with the Government in a partnership approach.
I know that "partnership" is a dirty word to the Conservatives, but partnership is the only way in which we will be able to progress to the future. The fairness at work legislation will be crucial to ensuring that people can use their energy and time to work in unison, to pick up a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, and to getting people to treat each other with decency.
The enormous challenge of welfare to work has been lost in today's debate. Our proposals for welfare to work in this Session will develop the idea of the single gateway to work and the support that can be given by the new deal advisers, whose role has been imaginatively developed. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, who has worked assiduously on this subject and who will have made a signal contribution to ensuring that single parents, men and women with a disability and those who have been long-term unemployed get support when they need it. My right hon. Friend will have helped to ensure that we have rigour as well as care and support, so that people know that they will get something for something, not something for nothing. We will do that in a positive way that renews hope.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham talked earlier of the example that needed to be set by mothers to show their young children that the world


of work existed. That is true of all parents. We need to ensure that no more children, when asked what they want to do when they grow up, give an answer about their benefit cheque. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) can confirm that that has happened.
We must ensure that children understand that the world of work is open to them. That is why we are against education systems that deny people that opportunity. We are not beleaguering the education profession with initiatives that they do not want, but we are investing large sums of money for which the profession has cried out for years.
We have announced today proposals to spend £5.4 billion, £2.5 billion of which is new money. Unfortunately, it is not new to the BBC, which has decided that any spending that was announced in July as £19 billion of additional resources over the next three years is no longer newsworthy because it is not new. That is an interesting response. If it had been applied to public expenditure survey proposals in the past, nobody would ever make new spending announcements because the details were all in the three-year public expenditure survey proposals. What a load of silly nonsense that is, as anyone with an ounce of sense knows.
Those who really will know the difference when it comes to whether it is old money or new will be the thousands of schools that have had money invested in them. Six thousand schools already are in that position. I went to Parliament Hill girls school this morning, which has a new roof, a new science and domestic science block and the ability to do the job better.
When we announce our proposals for reshaping the teaching profession, they will not be confined to rewarding the high performance of good teachers, important though that is. Our proposals will be about transforming the education service for the 21st century. That will mean an environment fit to teach in, support through teaching assistance and the sort of training that the Tories never gave to teachers. There was no initial teacher training curriculum until we came into government. There was no comprehensive programme for in-service training. There will be, and indeed, there is already under the Labour Government. We shall do the job properly.
If it is thought that a literacy hour that places emphasis on phonics, grammar and spelling is an interference, those who take that view do not believe in giving every child in every school the chance that he or she deserves. I tempt the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), to his feet again to tell me whether he believes in phonics, grammar and spelling as intrinsic elements of teaching primary school children to be able to read and write. I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Willetts: Of course the evidence is that phonics is a very effective way of teaching children to read. We believe also in a statement that we used to hear from the Secretary of State—something called intervention in inverse proportion to success. Teachers who are already teaching literacy very successfully are irritated that the literacy hour often has disoriented, distracted and changed their effective teaching methods when it should have been focused on the areas where there was a problem.

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman has done exactly the opposite. We listened to teachers, who at the

beginning of September were sceptical, and who are now converted. We listened to those who thought that they had done everything they could, but have discovered that there was something else that they could have done. There is added value. If teachers are gaining higher results, we do not say, "Completely transform your teaching methods." If 90, 95 or 100 per cent. of children at key stage 2 are reaching level 4, we are not saying to the teachers concerned, "Drop what you are doing." However, that is not happening. When we came into office, 40 per cent. of our young people were not achieving level 4. That is the problem.
Across the country now—with the materials and with £60 million-worth of in-service training—children are beginning to reach that level. I want again and again, publicly as well as in the House, to ensure that Conservative Members are pinned down on whether they believe in teaching phonics. That is what the literacy hour is all about. Every time Conservative Members deny the literacy hour they deny, the best way of teaching, as developed by the national literacy centres which my predecessor established. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that, if she had had the money, she would have spread the practice throughout the country. Well, we have put in the money and the resources, and we are putting in the teaching.
I want to deal with one other calumny, and that is the obsession that some in the country have—leader writers, journalists and a great many people who send their children to private school—not with 7 million children and their education, not with 24,000 schools, but with the issue of grammar schools. I want to place on the record the nonsense that has been written over the past two weeks. I do not intend to keep raising the matter publicly because we have something better to do, which is to raise standards for all our children rather than be obsessed only with a few.
I put it on the record again, for the umpteenth time since July 1995 when we published our proposals for parents to choose, that we are not abolishing any schools. We are not abolishing good schools. We are talking about allowing parents—the audacity, the sheer cheek—to decide whether they want to change the admissions policy for a particular school. We are setting a threshold before parents can have a ballot. Incidentally, the criticisms launched this evening about the way in which the Secretary of State can intervene if a ballot has been wrongly conducted are based entirely on the grant-maintained model introduced by the Conservatives.
The Tories do not understand the ballot paper, which will say that parents of a registered pupil attending a school which sends children to a named grammar school are entitled to vote in a ballot held in accordance with the Education (Grammar School Ballot) Regulations 1998. The ballot will determine whether or not the grammar school continues to select pupils on entry through examination by academic achievement—for example, using an 11-plus exam—or whether admission arrangements should be introduced that will admit pupils of all abilities. It asks whether the parents are in favour of the school introducing arrangements that admit children of all abilities. That is all that the ballot paper will say.
From reading The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and even The Sun, it would seem that we committed some dastardly act of secretly hiding matters from parents who obviously, according to those who attacked us, are not


intelligent enough to know that a grammar school that is called a grammar school is a grammar school, or who will not understand a ballot paper that asks them to decide whether they want the school to continue with an 11-plus examination. It is an insult to suggest that parents will not understand. Furthermore, the critics suggest that they should be forgiven for not wanting to change the admissions policies of those 160 schools, in perpetuity.

Mr. Willetts: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way, because we might as well have the matter out. It is a suitable time of night for dealing with it.

Mr. Willetts: Perhaps those parents believed the Prime Minister when he said of the 160 grammar schools that there are, "Let them remain." Does the Secretary of State agree with that statement by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Blunkett: It is important to make it clear, because I have heard both a parent and a head teacher suggesting otherwise on Radio 4's "Today" programme, that we do not propose to close the schools.

Mr. Damian Green: Yes, you do.

Mr. Blunkett: No, we do not. We are doing one simple thing. We are not ruling from Westminster on admissions policies. We are not asking local education authorities to rule. We are not asking the schools to determine matters. We are asking the people who have a direct interest in whether their child enters a school whether they want to keep the current admissions policy.

Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: Of course. We might as well have an education lesson, even though we are perilously close to 10 o'clock.

Mr. Brady: In the borough of Trafford, we need few lessons in education from the right hon. Gentleman or

his party. The borough achieves top 10 results for GCSEs, and last year it had the best A-level results in the country. That position was achieved by grammar schools and secondary modern schools in my constituency and in the rest of the borough.
I want to pick up the Secretary of State on his clearly inaccurate statement that only parents with a direct personal interest would take part in a ballot. Let me tell him that parents in Stretford or Old Trafford have no interest in the future of a grammar school in Altrincham or Sale. They do not send their children there, and they have no direct interest.

Mr. Blunkett: I may be wrong, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that some people in Trafford borough send their children to comprehensive schools because they have no choice of a grammar school in the area because there is a straight 11-plus. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's message.

Mr. Brady: Can I make the message clear?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I have to wind up.
The truth is that the people who should decide are those who have an interest. Those people are parents within the area involved. Anyone who thought that we would allow a system of admissions to atrophy in perpetuity would have to be daft. No one in their right mind would ever do that.
We have found a sensible system of dealing with a difficult problem and we will ensure that no grammar school has to fear anything. They do not have to fear letting children into a school. If anything was wrong with what happened when the 11-plus was abolished throughout the country, it was that we did not raise the standard of the old secondary schools to that of the grammar schools—it was not the children entering, but the change in policy. A school that fears a child entry because he or she does not appear at that moment to be bright enough or has a special need, cannot face with us the challenge of the 21st century. What we want is for every child, in every school, in every part of the country to get a decent education, and, above all, to know that they will get a job.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Arts (Liverpool)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Liverpool is a city of talent, and nowhere is that talent displayed more than in the arts. It is shown in Liverpool's fine theatres: the Everyman, the Playhouse, the Unity, the Royal Court, the Empire and the Neptune. It is shown in Liverpool's museums. Only a few months ago, Liverpool's conservation centre was declared the European museum of the year. It is shown in the city's unique Liverpool institute of performing arts, which trains the performers of tomorrow and which was opened by Sir Paul McCartney in 1996. It is shown in its orchestra—the world-renowned Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, which is a regional and national asset, nurturing talent for the whole community.
The talent is shown in Liverpool's imaginative festivals, such as "Brouhaha", "Africa Oye", "Hope Street" and the FACT—Foundation for Arts and Creative Technology—video festival. It is shown in its first-class galleries—the Tate and the Bluecoat. Films made in Liverpool include, "In the Name of the Father", and "The Hunt for Red October". Liverpool is the headquarters of the North West Film Commission and, in Mersey TV, Liverpool shows what it can achieve in television production.
Liverpool has produced a long—almost endless—list of excellent performers and writers. They include musicians from the Beatles and George Melly to Libor Pesek writers; such as Jimmy McGovern, Alan Bleasdale, Lynda la Plante and William Russell; and poets and artists such as Adrian Henri and Roger McGough. Actors who have performed in Liverpool at a critical time include Anthony Sher, Alison Steadman, Julie Walters and, of course, currently the Brookside cast.
Arts do matter. They matter for enjoyment and enhancing sensibilities and they matter in generating jobs through the increasingly recognised creative industries. All that is being acted on by this Government and die European Commission. I congratulate the Government on allocating an additional £125 million to the arts, in contrast with the cuts of the previous Tory regime. I also congratulate the Government on producing this month the first national report on the creative industries—the industries and jobs associated with the arts. Those industries generate revenues of £60 billion per year nationally and provide 1.4 million jobs. In Merseyside, 17,000 people are employed because of the creative industries, producing revenues of more than £92.6 million a year. Indeed, 5 per cent, of Liverpool's work force are employed in those industries.
The European Commission has recognised the economic importance of the arts, by funding arts-related activities through its objective 1 programme. Yet there is chronic insecurity in arts funding in Liverpool in two principal areas. That has come about because of the legacy of Tory cuts, together with the consequences of the abolition of Merseyside metropolitan county council in 1986.

It being Ten o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mrs. Ellman: Merseyside county council took responsibility for the arts.
The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic society has suffered budget cuts of more than £1.2 million in real terms over the past five years alone. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts and the Arts Council for the support that they have given to the orchestra, but will they continue that support, including a possible bid to the lottery stabilisation fund? I note that the royal opera house recently received a lottery grant of more than £9 million from that source.
The Playhouse in Liverpool has been closed since January. Talks are under way to secure the reopening of the Playhouse in part of a new major retail development in Williamson square. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, North West Arts, the Arts Council and others to support the theatre. It could be linked with the Everyman to give both theatres a secure future.
I seek a specific assurance that the survival of the Playhouse will not be at risk because of the commercial interests of the retail development in which it is to be housed, and I call on all those who gave commitments to ensure the future of the Playhouse to honour them.
I asked a parliamentary question last year about funding for Liverpool theatres, and discovered great disparity and inequity. I was told that, for 1997–98, public funding in theatres in various locations was as follows: Liverpool Playhouse to receive £700,000; Liverpool Everyman to receive £300,000; Birmingham Rep to receive £3.2 million; and Manchester Royal Exchange to receive £18.5 million. I welcome the funding that has been given to all those ventures, but why is Liverpool apparently not getting a fair deal? 
Liverpool has displayed its excellence in theatres small and large, in music and in many other areas. In particular, it has shown the importance of the arts in local regeneration and community development, and in bringing opportunities to alienated young people, yet it appears that obstacles are still put in the way of enabling the best use to be made of available public funds.
For example, Artskills in Dingle, Liverpool 8, has worked successfully with disadvantaged young people since 1996, and its "Great Teams" murals hung outside St. George's hall this summer. Under its single regeneration budget, Dingle wants to extend the project to the Granby area, but it is having difficulty bringing together new deal funding and European social fund moneys. I trust that those difficulties will be resolved so that we can have joined-up thinking and show once more how the arts can contribute to the local community and to the development of young people.
The exciting Hope street project is seeking regeneration of the Hope street quarter—the area that houses the Everyman theatre, the cathedrals and the philharmonic hall. It wants to show how physical and cultural regeneration can go together, and I hope that the project can secure significant funding to enable its work to progress.
We have a new focus for our region. The new north-west regional development agency is being set up, and more powers are to be delegated to the region through


a restructured North West Arts. The north-west regional development agency, together with the north-west chamber, will bring new opportunities for our region, provided that they, regional Government Departments and North West Arts work together to promote regional strengths. Sufficient funding must be available if devolved powers are to be meaningful in the local area.
I welcome the new integrated regional dimension to our policy making, as the arts have much to gain from it. A strategic vision is needed. After all, planning for Liverpool's now world-famous maritime museum and Tate gallery took place at the time of the Merseyside county council, and I hope that the development of our regional perspective will restore strategic planning and vision to the arts in our area.
Liverpool is buzzing with cultural activity and enterprise. The Merseyside Music Development Agency, with its "creative Liverpool" project, and ACME—the arts, culture and media enterprise—are both working to support the arts and to promote arts-related businesses as part of regeneration, building on local strengths. Liverpool must not be allowed to lose its artistic talents. We are all responsible for promoting opportunities in which artistic talent can flourish. We must provide the infrastructure that will make it possible and attractive for the many people in Liverpool with great artistic talent and aspirations to remain in Liverpool and deploy their talents effectively.
Liverpool has now set its sights on becoming European city of culture in 2007. I hope that the Minister feels able to back that vision and recognise Liverpool as the cultural capital not just of the north-west but of the United Kingdom. Oscar Wilde commented after the first performance of Lady Windermere's Fan:
The play was a great success, but the audience was a total failure.
Liverpool's play has been a long-running success story. The audience must now rise to the challenge.

The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate, for which she has chosen an important topic. She spoke with passion and enthusiasm about the role and achievement of the arts and the creative industries on Merseyside, and rightly so. Liverpool has been an astonishingly rich source of artistic activity for many years and more recently has been noted for the growth of its creative and media industries. As she said, Liverpool has been buzzing.
The traditional industries—import and export, the docks, car manufacturing—are being supplemented by new, growing industries, which are giving rise to a healthy mix of creative industries and cultural tourism businesses in the region. I should like to explain some of the ways in which the Government are fostering those new sources of growth. First, we are doing so through direct support for the arts. As my hon. Friend knows, central Government funding for the arts in England is channelled through the Arts Council of England. The Arts Council funds some arts organisations directly. It also provides the

bulk of the funding for the regional arts boards, which in turn fund other artists and arts organisations within their regions.
As my hon. Friend reminded the House, in the later years of the previous Government, funding for the arts stood still. The Arts Council was forced to freeze funding to most of the bodies that it supports, both the regional arts boards, which include North West Arts as the board responsible for Merseyside, and its client bodies, which include the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society.
However, even within that bleak overall situation for the arts nationally, bequeathed by the previous Government, it has been possible to focus some resources where they are most needed, including Merseyside. In the last full financial year, North West Arts allocated £2,592,246 to arts organisations and activities in Liverpool—some 27 per cent. of its total spending—and the Arts Council allocated £1,507,000.
Liverpool has also benefited from the national lottery. To date, Liverpool has received £17.5 million for lottery projects financed by the Arts Council, including capital projects, the "arts for everyone" main scheme and the "arts for everyone" express scheme, as well as grants from the heritage lottery fund.
My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties faced by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society and the Everyman and Playhouse theatres in Liverpool. I understand and appreciate her concern about the problems faced by those organisations.
The Government are putting right the neglect of the arts that we inherited. My Department will receive additional funding over the next three years of £290 million, of which no less than £124 million will go to the arts. That represents the largest-ever single increase in spending on the arts in England. It is good news for the arts, and good news for the arts on Merseyside.
The good news is not just about money. The Government believe strongly in delegating responsibility and financial resources to the regions and to areas where decisions can best be taken in line with local interests and local needs. The new Arts Council, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed earlier this year, shares that view. The Arts Council proposes that a substantial element of the extra resources for the arts that the Government are providing should be delegated to the regional arts boards.
The Arts Council expects the RABs to receive average increases in funding of 19 per cent. next year, 11 per cent. the year after, and 4 per cent. the year after that. Those increases in funding reflect our desire to make funding more equitable, taking into account not only current average per capita funding, but factors such as deprivation, which is an important consideration on Merseyside and in my hon. Friend's constituency. That will be an enormous boost to the arts in the regions, and to local decision making. Detailed allocations are a matter for the Arts Council, and will be announced next month, but I am confident that North West Arts will benefit substantially from the overall increase in resources available.
The Arts Council also proposes to enhance the status and flexibility of the regional arts boards by giving them more responsibility for direct funding of some of the companies and organisations presently directly funded by the Arts Council. The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic


Society is one of the organisations whose funding it is proposed to delegate to North West Arts. North West Arts will naturally be provided with the appropriate resources to provide funding for the bodies that it inherits.
I am deeply aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend and others who have raised with me the problems faced by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society. I appreciate that these are difficult times for the society. I wish the society's chairman, Peter Johnson, chief executive, Antony Lewis-Crosby, and their colleagues every success in their continuing efforts to put the society on to a firmer financial footing for the future.
The RLPS plays an important role in the music infrastructure of Merseyside, and it is one of our major regional orchestras. It has a well-established education and community access development unit, and has established strong links with local community groups, schools and other music organisations. Everyone with an interest in the arts wishes it well, but its future needs to be based on something more tangible than just wishes. It needs support from all concerned.
The Arts Council, which funds the RLPS directly, certainly understands that need. In the last financial year, its grant in aid to the society was £1,482,800, or almost 30 per cent. of the society's income. The Arts Council and North West Arts, which is due to take over responsibility for direct funding, continue to monitor closely the situation in the RLPS, and I understand that they are keen to assist in whatever ways they reasonably can. The Arts Council has already assisted the society through a short-term difficulty by providing an advance of £0.5 million in this financial year.
I should like to emphasise the importance of partnership in helping to sustain creativity in the arts, support education and social inclusion and promote regeneration and economic opportunity. Where such partnerships have been most successful, they are often built on contributions from many partners: artists, audiences and patrons, businesses, donors, central Government and local government. Central Government play their part, through our overall support for the creative industries and directly, via the Arts Council or regional arts boards; but local government also has an important role.
Clearly, every local authority must be free to decide its own priorities in line with local needs, provided that it meets its statutory obligations. In the context of the arts, however, it is worth noting the economic, artistic and social benefits that the west midlands derives from the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, which receives £1,058,000 from the city of Birmingham. Similarly, the city of Manchester provides £583,000 for the Hallé orchestra. Business, too, plays an important role in partnerships that support successful artistic ventures. I would like to encourage a spirit of partnership in support of the arts across the country, including Merseyside.
My hon. Friend mentioned Liverpool's theatres. There, too, taxpayers' funding is decided by the regional arts board. North West Arts will make allocations for the next three years to all its funded bodies, including those on Merseyside, in December this year or shortly afterwards. I understand that a report on theatre in Merseyside is due to be delivered to the Merseyside consortium for the arts in early December. The report will no doubt help to inform North West Arts' decisions about funding,

drawing on research into the levels of funding given to comparable theatres in other major urban centres such as Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester.
My hon. Friend will understand that it would be wrong for me to try to pre-empt the decision by North West Arts, but I am sure that, in reaching its decision, the regional arts board will want to take into account the strong views that she expressed. Nevertheless, let me again emphasise the importance of partnership. Support must come not just from Government, through the Arts Council and North West Arts, but from other parties.
The importance of the arts to Merseyside extends far beyond just the performing arts. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in recent years there has been a tremendous growth in the creative industries in and around Liverpool. Earlier this month, my Department launched a report on those creative industries—industries such as music, publishing, design and the arts—which, as she observed, now generate £60 billion of revenue a year, and employ 1.4 million people nationally.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said:
The creative industries are not a fringe benefit for Britain's economy, they are at the heart of it. We are one of the most creative nations on Earth".
With a growth rate of 5 per cent., the creative industries are generating new jobs and new wealth for Britain more rapidly than any other part of the economy.
For that reason, the Government are taking steps to encourage creative entrepreneurs. Policies are being introduced to stimulate inward investment, to deliver training opportunities and to help businesses to increase their productivity and competitiveness in order to achieve sustainable employment and economic growth in that highly important sector of my Department's remit.
The arts and creative industries are also important in that they can counter social exclusion and draw communities together. My hon. Friend made that point powerfully. The arts can provide a real link between education, lifelong learning, community development and economic regeneration. Let me give some examples from Merseyside. Much important work is being done in Liverpool by the Merseyside ACME—arts, culture and media enterprise—which is a partnership between the five Merseyside local authorities and the north-west regional arts board.
The partnership has attracted £2.97 million of European regional development funds through the Merseyside objective 1 programme to support the expansion of the creative industries and contribute to the economic regeneration of some of the most deprived areas of Merseyside up to the millennium. Let me express my admiration for a number of projects that ACME has supported through its access and participation programme, all of which are well known to my hon. Friend.
ACME enabled the Greenhouse multicultural play and arts centre to run a project around the Windrush festival. The project involved children and teachers in schools in both Toxteth and Dingle who worked with elders from the Caribbean community. Their work helped to build better understanding between people with different cultural backgrounds and from different generations, and celebrated, through performing arts, the Caribbean contribution to British life over the past 50 years. The project resulted in performances of music and dance in all the participating schools, and at the opening of the Caribbean garden at the museum of Liverpool life.
Greenhouse has also been heavily involved in another ACME-funded project: L8 Children, Young People and Regeneration. Greenhouse has worked in schools in Toxteth and Dingle, using visual arts, dance, drama and poetry to enable participants to explore issues of regeneration that affect themselves and their communities. In that way, it is hoped that young people in Liverpool 8 will be able to have a voice in the decision making that affects their lives and futures.
In Dingle, a project called Voices is aimed at giving young people a voice, enabling the expression of their lives and visions—in contrast to damaging media stereotypes about the area. Young people will take part in a range of art forms and develop new skills. The project will build young people's capacity to participate meaningfully in the regeneration partnership. Part of the project will be the design and installation of artwork depicting the history of Liverpool 8 in the new city council housing office in the area. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the importance of those and other such community cultural projects benefiting from the range of programmes that the Government have introduced, and the need for co-ordination between regional cultural agencies and other agencies.
The projects are excellent examples of local, conununity-based, community-led schemes. There are, of course, other larger and more prominent examples of how cultural development can take the lead in the economic and social regeneration of city centres and deprived areas. In my hon. Friend's constituency, as she mentioned, there is the excellent example of the Tate gallery, Liverpool, which was a catalyst for the development of the Albert dock complex—itself a symbol of Merseyside's renaissance after a period of economic decline.
The success and reputation of the Tate gallery in Liverpool has attracted considerable private-sector support, including major businesses such as Granada Television, Unilever plc, Save and Prosper Group Ltd., Mobil Oil, English Estates and Littlewoods. The Tate gallery is committed to the development of Liverpool as

a city of learning. It will help to build the region's reputation as a centre of educational and training excellence and innovation, and as a provider of skilled arts professionals for the employment opportunities of tomorrow.
I should also mention, as my hon. Friend did, the conservation centre, which earlier this year won the European museum of the year award for the national museums and galleries on Merseyside. The NMGM institutions are renowned for their innovative interpretation of museum collections for people of all ages. The eight national museums and galleries have won 17 national and international awards in the past 10 years for excellence in education, as well as awards for architecture, tourism and scholarship. They have also been awarded £24 million of lottery money—the biggest heritage lottery fund grant yet for developments across seven museums, although it went especially to the Walker art gallery and the Liverpool museum.
The debate has covered a wide range of issues. The fact that we have covered so much is evidence, if that were needed, of the vitality and diversity of the arts and the creative industries on Merseyside. My hon. Friend spoke of her hope that Liverpool might be the European city of culture in 2007—indeed, she staked a claim for Liverpool as the cultural capital of the United Kingdom—and that would be wonderful. I know that she and many others in Liverpool will work toward it. They will certainly have my personal goodwill in their endeavour.
The good news for the arts, not only on Merseyside but nationally, is that, thanks to the Government's commitment, they are once again at the heart of public policy. We are providing more funding for the arts and more support for the creative industries, and giving more scope for local and regional partnerships to make the most of this vital and thriving sector. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important topic, and for allowing me the opportunity to give the arts and creative industries on Merseyside due recognition.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.